ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT

ICTICT401_AE_SR1/ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdf
Document title: ICTICT401_AE_SR1 Version 1.0 Page 1 of 3
Resource ID: TBS_19_002_ICTICT401_AE_SR1 Created: 6
March 2019 Last updated: 18 March 2019
TOUGH TRAILERS SCENARIO
COMPANY OVERVIEW
Tough Trailers (formerly Tough Steel) was founded in 2000 as
an architectural metal fabricator
specialising in specialty aluminium and stainless steel
fabricating.
Tough Trailers diversified into trailer manufacturing in the
spring of 2007. Initially, they manufactured
small box utility trailers as an opportunity to use available
manufacturing capacity during slow
business cycles in the architectural metal business. By 2010, the
trailer division had grown so much
that Tough Trailers made the decision to become a full-time
trailer manufacturer.
Tough Trailers produces standard box trailers and is now
diversifying into customised trailers to the
customer’s specification. It prides itself in the quality of its
work and materials as well as in its unique
customisation features.
They have sales offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Each office has a show area for the
display of standard box trailers. The manufacturing takes place

in Newcastle (NSW). Trailers can be
shipped using contract hauliers from the factory direct to the
customer’s site, or are available for
pickup directly by the customer from the factory or sales
offices. The head office is also in Newcastle
on the same site as the factory.
Since Tough Trailers started, it has grown steadily. In the last
two years, sales have taken off and
increased by 40% each year. It now has a turnover of $10M and
around 1500 customers.
Tough Trailers has a very healthy level of retained profits and is
eager to expand into new areas.
TOUGH TRAILERS ORGANISATION CHART
Bob Sedgewick
Managing Director
Finance
James Mansour
Chief Finance Officer
2 x Accounts officers
Administration
Jenny Smith

Office Manager
3 x Office assistants
Manufacturing
Wolfgang Weiss
Head of Mfg
4 x Sheet metal
workers
8 x Welders
4 x Fitters
Human Resources
Celia Norton
HR Manager
IT
Ellen Chu
IT Manager
IT Support
Sales & Marketing
Angelo Cassati
Sales & Mktg Manager
Account Manager

Sales office
Sydney
4 x Sales consultants
Designer/Estimator
Account Manager
Sales office
Melbourne
Designer/Estimator
Account Manager
Sales Office
Brisbane
Designer/Estimator

CUSTOMERS
Tough Trailers customers range from the home handyman to
horse owners, tradesmen, serious off-
roaders and a variety of motor sportsmen (bike, boat and karts
etc.).
Customers’ orders range from the standard small box trailer for
$1,000 to utility trailers and
customised trailers. Utility trailers include off-road trailers, car
or bike carriers, and horse floats.
These can range in price from $1,300 to over $10,000 for the
deluxe horse float.
Customised trailers have become more popular recently,
particularly with tradesmen and motor
sportsmen. Prices can range from $3,000 up to $9,500
depending on the customisation required.
PROBLEMS
The company internal systems and computer systems have
worked well in the past, but with the
increase in sales, Tough Trailers has realised that they may not
be able to cope with continued
expansion, especially into some of the new areas that it hopes to
exploit.
In particular the following problems have been experienced:
of customised trailers that can
be produced. The sales catalogues are very basic and the sales
offices can only hold a limited
number of demonstration items. With the benefit of hindsight it
would have been a good

idea to photograph each customised trailer for inclusion in a
more comprehensive brochure.
quotes for the customised
trailers, and is having trouble getting this information within a
reasonable time period. While
they’re finding it valuable to be able to provide their clients
with an unlimited design scope,
the time taken to get a quote from Manufacturing is losing them
business.
FUTURE STRATEGIES
Some of the major changes in direction that arose from the
strategic plan include the following:
provide solutions for people who
want some individualisation of their trailers. This will be
achieved to some extent by
producing a range of modular components that can be
manufactured in higher volumes
rather than individually customised.
dealerships. The possibility of
franchising sales outlets has also been considered and this is
likely to be pursued later.
provide information about standard and
customised trailers, and eventually to sell directly to customers
through online ordering. The
website should integrate with their current systems for
payments.

Jenny Smith, the Office Manager, has an excellent grasp of
computer applications and has been
instrumental in setting up a website for her netball association
using Wordpress. Jenny Smith is
particularly eager to get a company website up and running,
with an online catalogue, ordering and
payment facilities. She envisages performing routine updates of
the content, either by herself or with
assistance from IT. She’s looking forward to the challenge.
At this stage, Tough Trailers have decided that developing the
website is beyond their experience and
expertise and that Red Opal Innovations will provide this
service. However, they’re keen to ensure the
website is dynamic and fresh and expect to develop new content
and be able to upload it to the
website. They have a budget of $30,000 for the website, which
can be completed in two stages.
tough Trailers scenarioCompany overviewTough Trailers
organisation chartCustomersProblemsFuture strategies
ICTICT401_AE_SR1/ROI_Email_template.docx
[Student name]Email template
[Your instructions are enclosed in square brackets. Delete the
instructions when finished.]
To: [[email protected]]
From: [[email protected]]
Date: [today’s date]
Subject: [subject of email]
Body: [body of email]
Signature block: [your name and details as relevant]
ICTICT401_AE_SR1/ROI_Org_chart.pdf

Red Opal Innovations
Organisation chart
Wendy Opal
Director
Vinh Nguyen
Manager
Development
Frank Marks
Manager
Multimedia
Productions
Sally Bach
Manager
Sales and Marketing
Amy Corgen
Manager
Human Resources
Terrence Stewart

Network Manager
IT Support
Max Boags
Manager
Accounts
ICTICT401_AE_SR1/ROI_Report_template.dotx
[Student name]Report NameReport Name
Version 1
Table of Contents
No table of contents entries found. [update Table of Contents
when finished]
Heading
Red Opal InnovationsPage 3
ICTICT401_AE_SR1/ROI_Scenario.pdf
Red Opal Innovations Page 1
Red Opal Innovations scenario
Red Opal Innovations (ROI) is an information technology
company that commenced operations in
2004. The focus of the business at that time was IT and network
consultancy services for small to

medium sized businesses. Three years ago the company decided
to add services for the design and
development of websites, multimedia products and customised
applications.
The company has the following departments:
-built
software solutions and dynamic
websites
animation
company’s social media presence,
attends industry and community events, visits clients and
identifies prospective clients
contract staff and their
entitlements such as leave and superannuation
company (accounts payable and
receivable).
To date, the company employs 40 full time staff with up to 20
additional contract staff utilised to
cover specific projects.
Red Opal Innovations scenario
Management practices at W. L. Gore & Associates give a new

dimension
to employee empowerment. Other organizations can learn from
the experience.
Employee Self-Management
Without Formally Designated Teams:
An Alternative Road to
Empowerment
FRANK SHIPPER CHARLES C. MANZ
To make money and have fun.
-W. L. Gore
Words like "self-management" and em-ployee "empowerment"
are quickly be-
coming the contemporary battle cry of Amer-
ican industry. The emphasis has shifted from
a focus on management control of employees
to a decentralization of power and the provi-
sion of opportunity for workers, at all levels, to
exercise increasing influence over themselves.
The idea behind employee self-manage-
ment, as the term implies, is for workers to
become, to a large degree, their own man-
agers. In attempting to use their human re-
sources more fully, many organizations have
moved beyond the mentality that managers
make dedsions and employees are simply ex-
pected to do what t h e / r e told. Self-manage-
ment involves an increasing reliance on work-
ers' creative and intellectual capabilities, not
just their physical labor.

Although questions may linger about
how to put this once-radical idea into prac-
tice, self-management is clearly becoming a
48 respected competitive advantage. In many
companies, organizing work around small
groups of workers empowered to perform
many traditional management functions (as-
signing tasks, solving quality problems, and
selecting, training, and counseling fellow
team members) has become a way of life. Ap-
plications of the team approach have spanned
industries and taken root in a variety of man-
ufacturing and service organizations. These
include some of the best-known companies
in the world—Procter and Gamble, General
Motors, Ford, Digital Equipment, IDS, Hon-
eywell, Cummins Engine, Tektronix, General
Electric, Caterpillar, Boeing, and LTV Steel, to
name just a few. Reports from the field cred-
it this work design innovation with many
positive benefits, including higher productiv-
ity, better attendance, less turnover, and im-
provements in both product quality and the
quality of working life for employees.
In many ways, empowered worker teams
seem to be emerging as the major new Amer-
ican industrial weapon to fend off interna-
tional competitive threats from such countries
as Japan. The team approach has become
highly visible: Conferences center on the con-

cept, consultants specialize in applying it, and
well-known business publications (Business
Week and Fortune, among others) make it cov-
er-story news. In fact, it has become visible to
the point that companies may begin to con-
clude that this is the only way to successfully
meet the business pressures in the 1990s and
on into the 21st Century, especially when
those pressures demand fuller involvement
and utilization of human resources.
Almost always, employee self-manage-
ment is introduced in organizations through
the establishment of formally designated em-
powered work teams. When employees are
hired, they are assigned to a work team as a
condition of their emplo3/̂ ment.
In this article v/e vnR suggest an alterna-
tive: An approach that promises to deliver
many of the advantages and benefits of for-
mally established empowered employee
work teams—^but v/ithout formally designat-
ed teams. Instead, the whole work operation
becomes essentially one large empowered
team in which everyone is individually self-
managing and can interact directly with ev-
eryone else in the system. To illustrate this al-
ternative, we will describe W. L. Gore &
Associates, a company that relies on self-de-
veloping teams without managers or bosses—
but with lots of leaders.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
W. L. Gore & Associates is a company that

evolved—^personally, organization,ally, and
technically—from the late Wilbert L. Gore's
experiences. He was born in Meridian, Idaho
(near Boise) in 1912. By age six, he had become
an avid hiker. He received a bachelor of sci-
ences degree in chemical engineering in 1933
and a master of sden<£s in physical chemistry
in 1935, both from tlie University of Utah. Af-
ter working for two other companies, he
joined E. I. DiaPont de Nemours in 1945,
where he held several positions, induding re-
search supervisor and head of operations re-
search. While at DuPont he worked on a team
to develop applications for polytetrafluo-
roethylene, frequently referred to as PTFE in
the scientific community and known as
"Teflon" by consumers. On this team, Wilbert
Gore (called Bill by everyone) felt a sense of ex-
cited commitment, personal fulfillment, and
self-direction. He was knowledgeable abdut
the development of computers and transistors
and felt that PTFE had insulating characteris-
tics ideal for use with such equipment.
He tried a number of ways to make a
PTFE-coated ribbon cable without success. A
breakthrough came in his home basement lab-
oratory. He was explaining the problem to Ms
son. Bob. Bob had seen some PTFE sealant
tape made by 3M and asked, "Why don't you
try this tape?" The senior Gore explained that
everyone knows you can't bond PTFE to itself.
Bob went on to bed, but his father lin-
gered in the basement lab, willing to try

"what everyone knew would not work." At
about 4 a.m., he walked into his son's room
waving a small piece of cable. "It works, it
works!" he shouted. The following night fa-
ther and son returned to the basement lab to
make ribbon cable coated with PTFE.
For the next four months Bill Gore tried
to persuade DuPont to make a new produdl—
PTFE-coated ribbon cable. By this time in Ms
career. Bill Gore knew some of the decision
makers at DuPont. After some preliminary dis-
cussions, it became dear that DuPont wanted
to remain a supplier of raw materials and not
a fabricator. Consequently, Bill began to dis-
cuss with his wife, Genevieve, known as
"Vieve," the possibility of starting their own
insulated-wire and cable business. On January
1,1958, their twenty-third wedding annivBr-
sary, they founded W. L. Gore & Assodales.
The basement of their home served-as the ficst
facility. After finishing their anniversary dih-
ner, Vieve turned to her husband of twerjty-
three years and said, "Well, lef s clear up tlie
dishes, go downstairs, and get to work."
Bill Gore was forty-five years old with
five children to support when he left DuPont.
He left behind a career of seventeen years, a
good salary, and a secure position. To Bnariee
the first two years of the business. Bill ajnd
Vieve mortgaged their house and took $4,ij)00
from savings. AU of their friends told theim
not to do i t 49

Frank Shipper is a professor of manage-
ment at the Franklin P. Perdue School of
Business at Salisbury State University. He
received his B.S. from West Virginia Uni-
versity and his M.B.A. and Ph.D. from the
University of Utah. Before returning to
school to pursue his graduate degrees, he
worked in biomechanical and structural
engineering. Since receiving his Ph.D., his
consulting, teaching, and research inter-
ests have focused on leadership effective-
ness, work teams, and strategic responses
to legal and political issues. He received a
Federal Faculty Fellowship for work on
organizational effectiveness.
Shipper has written three books and
numerous articles. His most recent books
are Task Cycle Management: A Compe-
tency-Based Course for Operating Man-
agers (plark Wilson Publishing Company,
1990) and Avoiding and Surviving Law-
suits: The Executive Guide to Strategic
Legal Planning (Jossey-Bass, 1989).
50
The first few years were rough. In lieu of
salary, some of the employees accepted room
and board in the Gore home. At one point
eleven employees were living and working
under one roof. A few years later, the Gores
secured an order for $100,000 that put the
company over the hump.

W. L. Gore & Assodates has continued to
grow and develop new products derived pri-
marily from PTFE, induding its best-known
product, GORE-TEX®. Today W. L. Gore
makes a wide range of products in four cate-
gories—electronic, medical, fabrics, and in-
dustrial products. In 1986, Bill Gore died
while backpacking in the Wind River Moun-
tains of Wyoming. Before he died he had be-
come chairman, and his son. Bob, president, a
position the latter continues to occupy. Vieve
remains as the only other officer, secretary-
treasurer.
As in many organizations, the early ex-
periences of the founder continue to mold the
corporate operations and culture. As wiU be
illustrated a number of times, the informal,
non-bureaucratic, low-overhead style that
characterized the company at its founding
has stuck^even though the firm now has
over 5,000 employees and is rapidly ap-
proaching $1 biUion in sales.
ORGANIZATION WITHOUT BOSSES:
EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT BASED
ON SELF-INITIATED TEAMWORK
W. L. Gore & Associates is a company with-
out titles, hierarchy, or any of the conven-
tional structures associated with enterprises
of its size. The titles of president and secre-
tary-treasurer are used only because they are
required by the laws of incorporation. The
Gore management style has been referred to
as "un-management/' an approach to man-

aging that has its roots in Bill's experiences on
teams at DuPont and that evolved over time
to adapt to current needs.
For example, in 1965 W. L. Gore & Asso-
ciates was a thriving and growing 200-em-
ployee company with a facility on Paper Mill
Road in Newark, Delaware. One warm Mon-
day morning in the summer. Bill Gore was
taking his usual walk through the plant,
when he suddenly realized he did not know
everyone. The team had become too big. As a
result, the company developed a policy that
no facility could have more than 150 to 200
employees, thus giving birth to a distinctive
expansion strategy: "Get big by staying
small." The purpose of maintaining small
plants is to accentuate a close-knit and inter-
personal atmosphere.
Today, W. L. Gore & Associates consists
of 44 plants worldwide with over 5,300 as-
sociates (the term used instead of "employ-
ees," and alwajî s spelled with a capital A in
company literature). In some cases the
plants are clustered together on the same
site, as in Flagstaff, Arizona, where the com-
pany operates four plants on the same site.
Twenty-seven of those plants are in the
United States and seventeen are overseas
(locations include Scotland, Germany,
France, and Japan).

Compensation at W. L. Gore & Associates
takes three foriris—salary, profit sharing, and
an Associates' Stock Ownership Program, or
ASOF (legally similar to an employee stock
ownership plan, or ESOF). Entry-level salaries
are tn the middle ranges for comparable jobs
in the industry. According to Sally Gore,
daughter-in-law of the founder, "We do not
feel we need to be the highest paid. We nev-
er try to steal people away from other com-
panies with salary. We want them to come
here because of the opportunities for gro îvth
and the unique work environment." Associ-
ates' salaries are reviewed at least once a year
and more commonly, twice a year. For most
workers, the reviews are conducted by a
compensation team drawn from individuals
at the employee's work site. All associates
have sponsors who act as their advocates dur-
ing this review process. FWor to meeting v/ith
the compensation committee, the sponsor
checks with customers (or whoever uses the
results of the person's work) to find out what
contribution has been made. In addition, the
evaluation team will consider the associate's
leadership ability and willingness to help oth-
ers develop to their fullest.
Charles C. Manz is an associate professor
of management at Arizona State Universi-
ty. He was awarded the prestigious Marvin
Bower Feliowship at the Harvard Business
Schooi in 1988-89 for "the outstanding
quaiity and quantity of his pubiished work"
in the area of self-managed work teams
and empioyee self-ieadership. He is co-au-

thor of SuperLeadership: Leading Others
to Lead Themselves (Prentice-Hall, 1989),
a book widely acclaimed by experts in the
field. One review proclaimed that the book
should be a "classic of the '90s." He and
co-author Henry P. Sims, Jr. were recently
described in an article in the Academy of
Management Executive as "the leading
writers in the area of self-management."
Manz has served as a consultant, ex-
ecutive education leader, or researcher for
many organizations. He has written arti-
cles, as well as several books, on the top-
ics of employee self-leadership, self-man-
aged work teams, and the leadership of
self-managed employees. Manz received
B.A. and M.B.A. degrees from Michigan
State University and a Ph.D. degree from
Pennsylvania State University.
Charles Manz completed the majority
of his writing for this article during his year
as a Marvin Bower Fellow at Harvard
Business School. The generous support he
received is gratefully acknowledged.
W. L. Gore has profit-sharing and ASOF
plans for all associates. FroHt sharing typi-
cally occurs twice a year, but is dependent
on profitability. The amount awarded to
each associate is based on his or her time in
service and annual rate of pay. In addition,
the firm buys company stock equivalent to

15 percent of the associates' annual income
and places it in an ASOF retirement fund.
Bill wanted the associates to feel that they
were owners, and after being with Gore for
one year, each associate does indeed become
a stockholder.
The principle of commitment is seen as a
two-way street. W. L. Gore & Associates tries
to avoid layoffs. Instead of cutting pay, seen
as disastrous to morale, the company has
used a system of temporar y transfers within a
plant or cluster of plants, as well as voluntary
layoffs.
It should be clear that Gore is an unusu-
al company by many standards. It has also
been a highly successful and profitable com-
pany. In fact, it has been profitable for 31
straight years. Sales jumped from $6 million
in 1969 to $660 million in 1990, the growth fi-
nanced entirely without debt.
Some of the primary features that charac-
terize Gore wiU be summarized in the follow-
ing pages as a series of organizational themes.
We will draw from these themes to prescribe
some possible lessons for organizations that
want to enjoy some of the benefits that Gore
has obtained. Those benefits apparently stem
largely from the company's distinctive em-
ployee-empowerment centered approach to
managing (or "unmanaging") an organization.
THEME 1
Culture and Norms Supporting

Employee Empowerment and Success
Bill Gore wanted to avoid smothering the
company in thick layers of formal "manage-
ment," feeling that such layers stifled indi-
vidual creativity. As the company grew, he
knew it had to find ways to assist new peo-
ple in getting started, as well as ways to fol-
low their progress—a particularly important
52 concern in compensation decisions. Thus,
the firm developed its "sponsor" program.
When people apply to W. L. Gore, person-
nel specialists conduct an initial screening,
as in most companies. Those candidates who
meet the basic criteria then interview with
selected associates. Before anyone is hired,
an associate must agree to be the new em-
ployee's sponsor—no sponsor, no job. The
sponsor is to take a personal interest in the
new associate's contributions, problems, and
goals, and to serve as both coach and advo-
cate. The sponsor tracks the new associate's
progress, providing help and encourage-
ment, and coaching the new member to cor-
rect weaknesses and concentrate on
strengths. Sponsoring is not a short-terrn
commitment. AU associates have sponsors
and many have more than one. When an in-
dividual is initially hired, the sponsor comes
from that person's immediate work area. If
he or she moves to another area, a new spon-
sor will be appointed from that work area.
As associates' responsibilities grow, they may
acquire additional sponsors.

Because the sponsor program goes be-
yond conventional views of what makes a
good associate, some anomalies occur in the
hiring practices. Bill Gore proudly told the
story of "a very young man" of eighty-four
who walked in, applied for a job, and spent
five very good years with the company. The
individual had thirty years of experience in
the ind ustry before joining Gore. His other as-
sociates had no problems accepting hirn, but
the personnel computer did. It insisted that
his age was 48. As in this example, the Gore
system of "unmanagement" attracts individ-
uals from diverse backgrounds and creates
unique success stories.
An internal memo by Bill Gore described
the three kinds of sponsorship he expected,
and how each might work in practice:.
1. The sponsor who helps a new
Associate get started on his job. Also,
the sponsor who helps a present Asso-
ciate get startled on a new job (starting
sponsor).
2. The sponsor who sees to it that
the Associate being sponsored ̂ efe ered-
it and recognition for contributions and
accomplishments (advocate sponsor).
3. The sponsor who sees to it that

the Associate being sponsored is fairly
paid for contributions to the success of
the enterprise (compensation sponsor).
A single sponsor can perfomti any
one or aU three lidnds of sponsorsliip. A
sponsor is a friend and an Associate.
All the supportive aspects of the
friendship are also present. Often (per-
haps usually) two Associates sponsor
each other as advocates.
In addition to the sponsor program. Gore
asks its associates to follow four guiding princi-
ples:
1. Try to be fair.
2. Use your freedom to grow.
3. Make your own commitments,
and keep them.
4. Consult with other Associates
prior to any action that may adversely
affect the reputation or financial sta-
bility of the company.
The four principles are often referred to
as Fairness, Freedom, Commitment, and Wa-
terline. The waterline terminology is drawn
from a ship analog]?. If someone pokes a hole
in a boat above the waterline, the boat will
be in rela^vely little real danger. If someone,
however, pokes a hole below the waterline,
the boat is in immediate danger of sinking.
In other words, associates can (and are en-

couraged to) make dedsions on theilr own as
long as the downside risk does not threaten
the orgariization's survival.
The operating principles were put to a
test in 197 .̂ By this lime, word about the qual-
ities of GQRE-TEX fabric were being spread
throughout the recreational and outdoor mar-
kets, and shipments began in volume. Then
it happened. At first, a few complaints and oc-
casidnal returns. FinaEy, large amounts of the
clothing were being returned. GORE-TEX
was leakirig. Having high-quality waterproof
pro4ucts was one of the two major charac-
teristics responsible for GORB-TEX's success,
and the compan3^s reputation and a-edibUity
were on the Mne.
Feter W. Gilson, who led Gore's fabric di-
vision, said of the situation, "It was an in-
credible crisis for us at that point. We were re-
ally starting to attract attention, we were
taking off—and then this." In the next few
months, Feter and his associates made a num-
ber of those "below the waterline" decisions.
First, the researchers determined that cer-
tain oils in human sweat were responsible for
dogging the pores in GORE-TEX fabric and
altering the surface tension of the membrane.
Thus, water could pass through. They also
discovered that a good washing could restore
the waterproof property. At first, this solu-
tion, known as the "Ivory Snow

Solution
,"
was accepted.
A single letter from "Butch," a mountadn
guide in the Sierras, changed the company's
position. Butch wrote that he had been lead-
ing a group and "my parka leaked and my life
was in danger." As Gilson says, "That scared
the hell out of us. Clearly our solution was no
solution at all to someone on a mountain
top." All of the products were recalled. As
Gilson says, "We bought back, at our own ex-
pense, a fortune in pipeline material. Any-
thing that was in stores, at the manufactur-
ers, or an5rwhere else in the pipeline."
In the meantime. Bob Gore and other asso-
dates set out to develop a permanent fix. O'ne
month later, a second generation GORE-TEX
fabric had been developed. Gilson, furthermore,
told dealers that if at any time a customer Be-

tumed a leaky parka, they should replace it and
bill the company. The replacement progiram
alone cost Gore roughly $4 million.
THEME 2
The Lattice Organization Structure:
The Keystone to the Team Approach
VMthout Formally Designated Teams
W. L. Gore & Assodates has been described
as not only unmanaged, but also as unstruc-
tured. Bill Gore referred to the structure as a
lattice orgaruzation. (See Exhibit 1.) The p:d-
mary characteristics of this structure aret
1. Lines of communication are direct —
person to person—^with no intermediary.
2. There is no fixed or assigned authorift}?. 53
EXHIBIT 1
THE LATTICE STRUCTURE

Associate
54
3. There are sponsors, not bosses.
4. Natural leadership is defined by
foUowership.
5. Objectives are set by those who must
"make them happen."
6. Tasks and functions are organized
through commitments.
The structure within the lattice is complex
and evolves from interpersonal interactions,
self-commitment to responsibilities known
within the group, natural leadership, and
group-imposed discipline.
Bill Gore once explained this structure
by saying, "Every successful organization has

an underground lattice. If s where the news
spreads like lightning, where people can go
around the organization to get things done."
Another phenomenon within the lattice is the
constant formation of temporary cross-area
groups. In other words. Gore has "teams
without formally designated teams." The
cross-level and cross-functional interpersonal
accessibility created by this structure enables
all kinds of teams to self-develop, as spedfic
needs arise. Assodates can team up vdth oth-
er associates, regardless of area, to get the job
done. When a puzzled interviewer told Bill
that he was having trouble understanding
how planning and accountability worked. Bill
replied with a grin, "So am 1. You ask me how
it works. [The answer is, it works] every
which way."
The lattice structure does have some sim-
ilarities to traditional management structures.
For instance, the thirty to forty assodates who
make up an advisory group meet every six
months to review marketing, sales, and pro-

duction plans. As Bill Gore has conceded,
"The abdication of titles and rankings can
never be 100 percent."
One thing that strikes an outsider is the
informality and pervasive sense of humor.
Words such as "responsibilities" and "com-
mitments" are, however, frequently used in
meetings. This is an organization in which
members take what they do seriously, but not
themselves.
For a company of its size. Gore may have
the shortest organizational pyramid found
anywhere. The pj^amid consists of Bob Gore,
the late Bill Gore's son, as president, Vieve,
BiU Gore's widow, as secretary-treasurer, and
aU others— t̂he associates. (Words such as em-
ployees, subordinates, and managers are
tabod in the Gore culture.)
THEME 3

No Bosses or Managers,
Lots of Leaders
One pf Bill Gore's internal memos described
the kinds of leaders that would be needed
and t|he roles they were to play. (Note how
he frequently used the term "team," yet his
organization then and now is based on the
lattice structure, not formally designated
teams—again, the team approach, but with
self-developing rather than formalized
teams.)
1. The Associate who is recognized
by a team as having a special knowl-
edge, or experience (for example, this
could be a chemist, computer expert,
niachine operator, salesman, engineer,
lawyer). This kind of leader gives the
team guidance in a special area.
2. The Associate the team looks to
for coordineition of individual activities
in order to achieve the agreed-upon
objectives of the team. The role of this

leader is to persuade team members to
niake the commitments necessary for suc-
cess (commitment seeker).
3. The Associate who proposes
necessary objectives and activities and
s^eks agreement and team consensus on
objectives. This leader is perceived by
the team members as having a good
grasp of how the objectives of the team
fit in with the broad objective of the
enterprise, 'fhis kind of leader is often
also the "commitment seeking" leader
in 2 above.
4. The leader who evaluates the
relative contributions of team members
(i:̂ consultation with other sponsors),
and reports these contribution evalua-
tions to a compensation committee.
This leader may also participate in the
ccjmpensation committee on. relative
ccintribution and pay and reports
changes in compensation to individual

Associates. This leader is then also a
compensation sponsor.
5. The leader who coordinates the
research, manufacturing and market-
ing of one product type within a busi-
ness, interacting with team leaders and
individual Associates who have com-
mitments regarding the product b/pe.
These leaders are usually called prodtict
specialists. They are respected for their
knowledge and dedication to their
products.
6. Plant leaders who help coordi-
nate activities of people within a plaifit.
7. Business leaders who help C(30r-
dinate activities of people in a business.
8. Functional leaders who help coor-
dinate activities of people in a "furtc-
tional" area.
9. Corporate leaders who help coor-

dinate activities of jDeople in different
businesses and functions and who try
to promote communication and coop-
eration among aU Associates.
10. Intrapremiiring Associates wko
organize new teams for new businesses,
new products, new processes, new! de-
vices, new marketing efforts, new Or
better methods of all kinds. These lead-
ers invite other Associates to "sign uip"
for their project.
It is clear that leadership is
widespread in our lattice organization
and that it is continually changing j^ ttd
evolving. The reality that leaders late
frequently also sponsors should ^ibt
confuse the fact that these are dififer-
ent activities and responsibilities. Lefad-
ers are not authoritarians, manager^ of
people, or supervisors who tell us wjhat
to do or forbid us from doing thir^gs;
nor are they "parents" to whom |we
transfer our own self-responsibil|[ty.

However, they do often advise u^ of
the consequences of actions we h^ve
done or propose to do. Our actions! r6-
sult in contributions, or lack of conjtEi-
butions, to the success of our enileir-
prise. Our pay depends on }&
magnitude of our contributions. TJhis
is the basic disdpline of our lattice oiiga-
nization. 55
Many other aspects of organizational life
are arranged along similar lines. The parking
lot does not have any reserved parking spaces
except for customers and the handicapped.
There is only one area in each plant in which
to eat. The lunchroom in each new plant is
designed to be a focal point for employee in-
teraction. As Dave McCarter of Fhoenix ex-
plains, "The design is no acddent. The lunch-
room in Flagstaff has a fireplace in the middle.
We want people to like to be here." The lo-
cation of the plant is also no accident. Sites
are selected based on transportation access, a

nearby university, the natural beauty of the
surroundings, and appeal of the climate.
Land cost is never a primary consideration.
McCarter justifies the selection criteria by
stating, "Expanding is not costly in the long
run. The loss of money is what you make
happen by st5rmieing people into a box."
In many ways the leadership approach
used at Gore might be compared with the re-
cently coined concept "SuperLeadership" —
Leading Others to Lead Themselves (a book by C.
C. Manz and H. P. Sims, Frentice-Hall, 1989,
Berkley, 1990). The focus is on empowering
and enabling others to perform on their own,
and to the best of their ability. In a sense the
only real bosses for Gore employees are them-
selves.
THEME 4
Successful Associates Can Work
Without Structure and Management
Not all people function well under such a sys-

tem, espedally initially. For those accustomed
to a more structured work environment, there
are adjustment problems. As Bill Gore said,
"All our lives most of us have been told what
to do, and some people don't know how to
respond when asked to do something—and
have the very real option of saying no—on
their job. It's the new assodate's responsibili-
ty to find out what he or she can do for the
good of the operation." The vast majority of
the new assodates, after some initial floun-
dering, adapt quickly.
For those who require more, structured
56 working conditions. Gore's flexible work
place is not for them. According to Bill, for
those few, "It's an unhappy situation, both
for the associate and the sponsor. If there is
no contribution, there is no paycheck."
Ron Hill, an associate in Newark, has
pointed out that the company "will work
with associates who want to advance them-
selves." Associates are offered many in-

house training opportunities. These tend to
be technical and engineering focused, be-
cause of the type of organization Gore is, but
the training also includes in-house programs
in leadership development. In addition, the
company has cooperative programs through
universities and other outside providers.
Gore will pick up most of the costs for the
associates. As in many aspects of the Gore
culture, the emphasis here is that the asso-
ciate must take the initiative.
As Anita McBride, an associate in
Fhoenix, says, "It's not for everybody. Feo-
ple ask me, do we have turnover, and yes
we do have turnover. What you're seeing
looks like Utopia, but it also looks extreme. If
you finally figure out the system, it can be
real exciting. If you can't handle it, you got-
ta go. Frobably by your own choice, because
you're going to be so frustrated."
In rare cases an associate 'tries to be un-
fair," as Bill put it. Such "unfairness" might
involve chronic absenteeism, for example,

or an individual caught stealing. "When that
happens, all hell breaks loose," said Bill
Gore. "We can get damned authoritarian
when we have to."
Over the years. Gore & Associates have
faced a number of unionization drives. The
company neither tries to dissuade an asso-
ciate from attending an organizational meet-
ing nor retaliates when flyers are passed out.
Bach attempt has been unsuccessful, and
none of the plants have been organized to
date. Bill believed that no need exists for
third-party representation under the lattice
structure. "Vv
̂ hy would associates join a
union when fhey own the company?" he
asked. "It seems rather absurd."
It should be obvious that life as a Gore as-
sodate can be unique and challenging. Con-
sider ihe following example. On July 26,1976,
Jack Dougherty, a newly minted MBA from

the College of William and Mary, became an
associate- Bursting with resolve and dressed
in a dark blue suit, he presented himself to
Bill Gore, shook hands firmly, looked him in
the eye, and said he was ready for anything.
What happened next was the one thing
for which Jack was not ready. "That's fine.
Jack, fine," Gore replied. "Why don't you
look around and find something you'd Hke
to do." Three frustrating weeks later. Jack
found that something. Now dressed in
jeans, he loaded fabric into the maw of a ma-
chine th^t laminat(es GORE-TEX membrane
to other fabrics. It was Jack's way of learn-
ing the business. And by 1982, he had be-
come responsible for all advertising and
marketing in the fabrics group.
This story is part of the folklore that is
heard over and over about Gore. Today the
process is slightly more structured. New as-
sociates take a Journey through the business
before settKng into their own positions, re-
gardless of the specific position for which

they are hired. A new sales associate in the
fabric division may spend six weeks rotating
through different areas before begiinning to
concentrate on sales and marketing. Among
other things he may leam is how GORE-TEX
fabric is made, what it can and can not do,
how Gore handles custoEcier compkiints, and
how it makes its investment decisions.
Anita McBride related her early experi-
ence at W. L. Gore this way:
Before I came to Gore I had
worked for a structured organization
. . . I came here, and for the first month
it was fairly structured because I was
going through ti-aining... "this is what
we do and this is how Gore is" and all
of that, and I went to Flagstaff for that
training. After a month I came down
to Phoenix and my sponsor said,
"WeU> here's your office"— ît's a won-
derful office—and "Here's your desk"
and walked away. And I thought now
what do I do, you know? I was waiting

for a memo or something, or a job de-
scription. FinaUy after another month I
was so frustrated, I felt what have I got-
ten myself intol I went to my sponsor
and I said "What the heck do you want
from me? I need something from
you," and he said, "If you don't know
what you're supposed to do, examine
your commitments and opportunities."
As a postscript to the story, Anita did fiind
something worthwhile to do— ŝhe now herids
up the personnel function in Phoenix and
seems to love her company.
THEME 5
Unstructured Research and Developniekiit
for Increased Creativity and Innovation
Research and development, like everything
else at Gore, is unstructured. There is no fpr-
mal R&D department, yet the company hblds
numerous patents. Most inventions are held
as proprietary or trade secrets. Any associate

can ask for a piece of raw PTFE (known iai$ a
"silly worm") with which to experiment. Bill
Gore believed that all people had it wiillin
themselves to be creative^
The best way to understand hoW iie-
search and development works is to see how
inventiveness has previously occurreii at
Gore. By 1969, the wire and cable division
was facing increased competition. BiU Gqre
began to look for a way to straighten out the
PTFE molecules. As he said, "I figured out
that if we ever unfold those molecules, get
them to stretch out straight, we'd ha^e a
tremendous new kind of material." lile
thought that if PTFE could be stretched] liir
could be introduced into its molecular stlritlc-
ture. The result would be greater volume per
pound of raw material without affecting pei-
fotmance. Thus, fabricating costs woulq be
reduced and the profit margins would be| in-
creased. Bill and his son. Bob, heated rodjs pf
PTFE to various temperatures and then slip#-
ly stretched them. Regardless of the temper-
ature or how carefully they stretched, itlfke

rods broke.
Working alone late one night in 1969 al̂ ter
countless failures. Bob in frustration yankijd
at one of the rods violently. To his surpriste, it
did not break. He tried it again and again
with the same results. 57
58
The next morning Bob dramatized the
breakthrough to his father. As BiU Gore told
the story, "Bob wanted to surprise me so he
took a rod and stretched it slowly. Naturally,
it broke. Then he pretended to get mad. He
grabbed another rod and said, 'Oh the hell
with this,' and gave it a puU. It didn't break—
he'd done it." The new arrangement of
molecules changed not only the wire and ca-
ble division, but led to the development of
GORE-TEX fabrics, now the largest division
at Gore, plus a host of other products.

BiU and Vieve conducted initial field-test-
ing of GORE-TEX fabric in the summer of
1970. Vieve made a hand-sewn tent out of
patches of the material, and they took it on
their annual camping trip to the Wind River
Mountains in Wyoming. The very first night
in the wilderness, they encountered a hail
storm. The hail tore holes in the top of fhe
tent, but the bottom fiUed up like a bathtub
from the rain. As BiU Gore stated, "At least we
knew from aU the water that the tent was wa-
terproof. We just needed to make it stronger,
so it could withstand hail."
The second largest division began on the
ski slopes of Colorado. BiU was skiing with his
friend. Dr. Ben Eiseman, of the Denver Gen-
eral Hospital. As BiU Gore told the story, "We
were just about to start a run when I absent-
mindedly pulled a small tubular section of
GORE-TEX out of my pocket and looked at
it. 'What is that stuff?' Ben asked. So I told
him about its properdes. 'Feels great,' he said,
'What do you use it for?' 'Got no idea,' I said.
'Well give it to me,' he said, 'and I'll try it in a

vascular g::aft on a pig.' Two weeks later, he
caUed me up. Ben was pretty^ excited, 'Bill,' he
said 'I put it in a pig and it works. What do I
do now?' I told him to get together with Pete
Cooper in our Flagstaff plant, and let them
figure it out." Now hundreds of thousands
of people throughout the world walk around
with GORE-TEX vascular grafts.
Every associate is encouraged to think,
experiment, and follow a potentially prof-
itable idea to its conclusion. For example, at a
plant in Newark, Delaware, a machine that
wraps thousands of yards of wire a day was
designed by Fred L. Eldreth, an associate with
a formal education that stopped with the
third grade. The design was done over a
weekend. Many other associates have con-
tributed their ideas for both product and pro-
cess breakthroughs.
Without an R&D department, innova-
tions and creativity work very well at Gore &
Associates. The year before he died, BiU Gore

claimed that "The creativity, the number of
patent applications and innovative products
is triple [that of DuPont]." Overall, the asso-
ciates appear to have responded positively to
the Gore system of unmanagement and un-
structure. Bill Gore estimated the year before
he died that, "The profit per associate is dou-
ble" that of DuPont.
THEME 6
Use Witti Caution:
The Lattice Structure and "Unmanagement"
Approach Have Limitations
While the lattice and unstructured manage-
ment appear to be a remarkable and promis-
ing innovation, it should be considered with
some caution. Just as with any other new
management approach, it should be evaluat-
ed in terms of its fit with an organization's
culture and objectives. BiU Gore defended the
approach, but with sensitivity to its alleged
limitations. "I'm told from time to time," he
once said, "that a lattice organization can't
meet a crisis well because it takes too long to

reach a consensus when there are no bosses.
But this isn't true. Actually, a lattice, by' its
very nature, works particularly weU in a aisis.
A lot of useless effort is avoided because there
is no rigid management hierarchy to conquer
before you can attack a problem."
The lattice has been put to the test on a
number of occasions. For example^ in 1975 Dr.
Charles Campbell, the University of Pitts-
burgh's senior resident, reported that a GORE-
TEX arterial graft had developed an anevuysm.
(An aneurysm is a life-threatening, bubble-like
protrusion. If it continues to expand, it will ex-
plode.) Obviously, this kind of problem had
to be solved quickly and permanently.
Within only a few days of Dr. Campbell's
first report, he flew to Newark to present his
findings to Bill and Bob Gore and a few other
associates. The meeting lasted two hours. Be-
fore it was over, Dan Hubis, a former poKce-

man who had joined Gore to develop new
production methods, had an idea, and he re-
turned td his work area to try some different
production techniques. After three hours and
twelve tries, he had developed a permanent
solution. In other words, in only tkree hours
a potentially damaging problem to both pa-
tients and the company was resolved. Fur-
thermore, Hubis's redesigned graft has gone
on to win widespread acceptance in the med-
ical community.
Other critics include outsiders who had
problems with the idea of no titles. Sarah
Clifton, an associate at the Flagstaff facility,
was being pressed, by some outsiders as to
what her title was. She made one up and had
it printed on some business cards—
SUPREME COMMANDER. When Bill Gore
learned what she did, he loved it and re-
counted ijlie story to others.
Another critic, Eric Reynolds, founder of
Marmot Mountain Works Ltd. of Grand
Junction, Colorado, and a major Gore cus-

tomer, points to another limitation: "I think
the lattici has its problems with the day-to-
day nitty-gritty of getting things done on
time and put the door. I don't think Bill real-
izes how the lattice system affects customers.
I mean after you've established a rektionship
with someone about product quality, you can
caU up one day and suddenly find ihat some-
one new to you is handling your problem.
It's frustrating to find a lack of continuity."
He goes pn to say, "But I have to admit that
I've persclnally seen at Gore remarkable ex-
amples of people coming out of nowhere and
excelling."
BMI Gpre was asked a number of times if
the lattice structure could be used by other
companies. His answer was no. "For exam-
ple," he explained, "established companies
would find it very difficult to use the lattice.
Too many hierarchies would be destroyed.
When you remove titles and positions and
allow people to follow whom they want, it
may very well be someone other than the
person who has been in charge. The lattice

works for us, but it's always evolving. ou
have to expect problems." He maintained
that the lattice system works best when put
in place by a dynamic entrepreneur in a
start-up company.
CONCLUSIONS
Organizations that are considering the intro-
duction of employee empowerment and sdlf-
management could benefit from several
lessons stemming from the story told in tMs
article. Some of these lessons are summanefed
below.
1. The role of management and leader-
ship needs to be redefined. A leadership per-
spective that recognizes the role of self-man-
agement and self-leadership for each
employee is at the heart of the empowerment
approach. At Gore, associates talk about "un-
management"—^with no bosses or managers,
but with lots of leaders.

2. Organization and structure need to be
redefined as well. A concrete chain of com-
mand and definite hierarchy are not charac-
teristics that describe Gore. Rather, Gore li^s
only two designated officer positions (pijesi-
dent and secretary-treasurer), and these dr%
because of legal requirements. Everyone felse
is an associate with no assigned title. At Gbre,
they talk about "unstructure," not structitire.
The lattice allows all associates to interact di-
rectly with anyone else they need to, without
concern for a formal chain of command.
3. Some of the void that is left by the Ictb-
sence of structure and management (in a tra-
ditional sense of those terms) can be filled by
culture and norms. Gore relies on spons(biis,
not managers, to help guide associates and to
serve as advocates for less experienced eriii-
ployees. At Gore, innovation, teamwork, arid
independent effort are valued and the asisd-
ciates are well aware of it. The Gore cultiiie
encourages fairness, freedom, and comtî iit-
ments in an overall system that emphasises
contribution to the entire organizational team.

4. While formally designated, relatively
permanent teams may not be needed, lots pf
teamwork is. Gore relies heavily on fluid, teirii- 59
60
porary self-developing teams and on an over-
all commitment to contributing to the entire
organization team.
5. An unstructured system that empha-
sizes self-management and requires individ-
ual initiative can be a difficult transition for
some employees. At Gore, many of the em-
ployees love the system; others cannot take it
and leave. Realistic "job previews" that inform
employees about what t h e / r e getting into,
along with orientation and training to prepare
them to deal with high levels of autonomy,
are probably essential ingredients for organi-
zations considering adopting a similar system.

6. Leaving research and development
unstructtured while encouraging everyone to
get involved can lead to lots of innovation.
At Gore, everyone is encouraged to get into
the act of experimenting with new ideas.
Some of Gore's most important products
have resulted from the creativity of "regular"
workers who came up with a different idea
and had the encouragement and freedom to
follow through on it.
7. Provide multiple opportunities for ev-
eryone to participate in the organization and
multiple ways for them to be rewarded for
their participation. More than most compa-
nies. Gore recognizes the individual employ-
ee and the diversity of skills that each can
bring to the workplace. Gore also recognizes
individual contributions through its salary,
profit sharing, and ASOP programs.
8. Consider self-management and a sys-
tem such as Gore's with caution. While W. L.
Gore has achieved some very impressive re-
sults, it has also had its critics and those who

have pointed out potential flaws with the
system. BiU Gore argued that the lattice sys-
tem should work best in start-up companies
led by dynamic entrepreneurs.
VVe believe many of the principles un-
derlying the Gore system could be adopted
in most organizations, but should not be
adopted blindly. Relying on self-developing
teams without managers may not represent
the right organizational approach for all, but
it is sure worth a look.
Gore has gone beyond the ideal of a
democratic, capitalistic organization to an
egalitarian, participative, entrepreneurial so-
ciety. The values of Rousseau, Locke, Smith,
and Jefferson are embodied in Gore's culture
and operating systems. The difference be-
tween many other economic enterprises and
Gore is Uke the difference between a monar-
chy and a participative democracy. In the for-
mer, only a few have the right to a leadership
role; in the latter, anyone with the requisite

skill and motivation can become a leader. Fur-
thermore, in the fornaer only a few can sig-
riificantly profit financially; in the latter, many
can profit.
The approach used by Gore is a radical
shift from the usual practices of business, but
other firms such as Herman Miller and Dana
Corporation have developed (or are moving
toward) similar values and culture. The keys
for such a transformation are both organiza-
tional and individual. Organizations must
put into place the operating systems to allow
individuals to use their array of skills, and be
rewarded for so doing. Organizations also
must rid themselves of the structure and
processes that compartmentalize and create
"we/they" feelings. Managers from other
companies frequently visit Gore in an effort
to understand how Gore does it. Anita
McBride indicated that, in her experience,
the majority walk away unwilling to face the
organizational changes required.
At least as important as the organiza-

tional changes are the individual ones re-
quired. Individuals in the organization must
master some basic self-leadership skills. And
learning to lead themselves weU is usually a
prerequisite for effectively leading others.
Employees at all levels of the organization
need to learn more than a set of speciaUzed
technical skills. They need to learn the keys
to motivating and directing themselves and
to helping others to do the same.
Again, such a change is not for everyone
or for all organizations. The commitment to
the change must be whole, not half-hearted.
To go half-way is to limit the potential for
growth both individuaUy and economically.
Individual and economic growth complement
and sustain each other. Both must be un-
leashed for organizations and individuals to
develop simultaneously. Gore h a s evolved
into a society where the potential for both is
unleashed. Organizations a n d their leaders

that are interested in taking a similar p a t h
must finfl effective ways to unleash the po-
tential oi all. The lessons presented in this ar-
ticle represent some practical guidelines for
achieving this end.
If you wish to make photocopies or
obtain reprints of this or other
articles in ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS,
please refer to the special reprint
service instructions on page 80.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A number of sources were especially helpful in
background material for this article,
important of these were the W. L.
)ciates, who generously shared their
viewpoints about the company. We es-
appreciate the i n p u t from Anita
proyidini
The mos

Gore ass(
time and
pecfally
McBride.
A
able for
Gore
Angr
May 9,19
Hoerr,
the boss,"
Price
Republic,
Posn
June 1986
number of published sources are avail-
obtaining lnore information on W. L.
& Assodates. These include:

tst, S. W., "Classless Capitalists," Forbes,
1983, pp. 123-4.
•, J., "A co:mpany where everybody is
Business Week, April 15,1985, p. 98.
K., "Firm Thrives Without Boss," AZ
ebruary 2,1986.
it, B.G., "The first day on the job," Inc.,
pp. 73-5.
Rhodes, L., "The Un-manager," Inc., August
1982, p. 34.
Simtiions, J., "People Managing Them-
selves: Uri-manageraent at W.L. Gore Inc.," The
Jourtial for Quality and Participation, December
^ pp. 14-19.
Ward, A., "An AU-Weather Idea," The New
York Timer, Magazine, Nov. 10,1985, Sec. 6.
''Wilbert L. Gore," Industry Week, Oct. 17,
19831 pp. 48-49.
for rr ore information on empowered work

teams and compatible leadership approaches,
we recommend the books SuperLeadership: Le!ad-
ing Others to Lead Themselves byJCharles C. Manz
a n d H e n r y P. Sims, Jr. (Prentice-Hall, 1989,
Berkley, 1990), High Involvement Managementpy
Edward E. Lawler, III (Jossey-Bass, 1986), afid
Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself
for Personal Excellence by Charles C. Manz (rtrsn-
tice-Hall, Forthcoming, 1991). We also recom-
mend J. Richard Hackman's article "Psycholo-
gy of Self-Management in Organization^" in
Psychology and Work: Productivity Change and Em-
ployment (American Psychological Association,
1986), edited by M.S. PoUack and R.O. Peil0ff;
Richard E. Walton's article "From Control to
Commitment in the Workplace" in the Hativ^rd
Business Review (March/April 1985), and the kr-
ticle by Charles C. Manz, David E. Keating,!ajid
Anne Donnellon entitled "Preparing for an| 0 r -
ganizational Change to Employee Self-Mdn-
agement: The Managerial Transition," Or^ahi-
zational Dynamics, 1990. ;
For information on overcoming manajjeri-

al resistance to empowerment, see the^arjtiiiile
by Tim Reinhard, Joseph Robinson, Jr., Tc|rifey
Sloane, Frank Shipper, Janice L. Weir, and BiU
Wickersham, "Handling Managerial Resist^riice
to Employee Involvement," Journal of Quklity
and Participation (December 1991). : i 61
Unit Assessment GuideCriteria
Qualification/Course code, name and release number
ICT40118 - Certificate IV in Information Technology (1)
Unit code, name and release number
ICTICT401 - Determine and confirm client business
requirements (1)
Unit details
Table 1 Unit details

Section
Description
Unit description
This unit describes the skills and knowledge required to
determine client business system requirements and verify the
accuracy of the information gathered.
It applies to information and communications technology (ICT)
personnel who are required to analyse client expectations and
needs, and recommend business system changes.
No licensing, legislative or certification requirements apply to
this unit at the time of publication.
Pre-requisites
N/A
Learning outcomes
In this unit, you will gain the knowledge and skills to:
1. Determine context of business need or problem
2. Gather information
3. Confirm system specifications
For further information about this unit go to:
https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/ICTICT401
Assessments
The assessments in this unit are a combination of written and
skill-based assessments. Both knowledge and skills will be
assessed in both assessments. The types of assessments you will

be completing are:
· Project – determine a business problem
· Project – determine business requirements
Learning materials
The learning materials for this unit include:
· resources provided on Moodle
· Student workbook.
Assessment Information
You must submit assessment work and attend scheduled
assessments on the required dates.
For further information, refer to Every Students Guide to
Assessment in TAFE NSW.
Achieving a satisfactory result
Your assessor will assess your competence against the
requirements of the unit and the completion of the assessments
listed in this Unit Assessment Guide.
Reporting assessment outcomes
Your Transcript of Academic Record will list all results of your
study to date. If you have achieved competency in a unit but are
unable to finish the Qualification or Course, you will receive a
Record of Results showing only the units you have completed.
You can access a report of your final results by logging into the
Student Portal.
Recognition
Credit Transfer (CT) – you can apply for credit if you have

previously completed this unit at TAFE NSW or another
Registered Training Organisation (RTO).
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) – you can apply to have
your previous study, work and or life experiences recognised.
Please see the TAFE NSW website for further information about
Recognition or discuss this with your Assessor.
Assessment feedback, review or appeals
In accordance with the TAFE NSW policy Manage Assessment
Appeals, all students have the right to appeal an assessment
decision in relation to how the assessment was conducted and
the outcome of the assessment. Appeals must be lodged within
14 working days of the formal notification of the result of the
assessment.
If you would like to request a review of your results or if you
have any concerns about your results, contact your Teacher or
Head Teacher. If they are unavailable, contact the Student
Administration Officer.
Contact your Head Teacher for the assessment appeals
procedures at your college/campus.
Reasonable adjustment
If you have a permanent or temporary condition that may
prevent you from successfully completing the assessment
event(s) in the way described, you should talk to your assessor
about ‘reasonable adjustment’. This is the adjustment of the
way you are assessed to take into account your condition, this

must be approved BEFORE you attempt the assessment.
Educational Support Services
Please refer to the TAFE NSW website for specific information
on the educational support services that are available to you.
You may also contact your Head Teacher or Trainer/Assessor
for further information.
Student Declaration
Your Trainer/Assessor will provide you with the Student
Declaration document for you to sign to ensure that you have
received and understood your assessment requirements as per
this Assessment Unit Guide.
You may receive this in hardcopy or you will be required to
acknowledge your understanding online.Assessment events and
schedule
Table 2 Assessment events and schedule
Event Number/Name
Method of collecting evidence
Venue
Assessment date or submission due date
AE1: Determine a business problem
1 of 2
Project
Online
TBA
AE2: Determine business requirements

2 of 2
Project
Online
TBAContact details
Table 3 Contact details
Position
Name
Contact phone
Email
Region / Campus
Trainer/Assessor
Head Teacher
Education Administration Support

Document titleVersion 1.0Page 1 of 3
Disclaimer: Printed copies of this document are regarded as
uncontrolled. Please check to ensure this is the latest version.
© 2011 Department of Education and Communities, TAFE NSW
eLearning Hub | Version: 0.0 | Created: dd/mm/2011
Document title: ICTICT401_UAGRTO Code: 90003Page 1 of 4
Resource ID: TBS_19_002_ICTICT401_UAG
TAFE NSW would like to pay our respect and acknowledge
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the Traditional
Custodians of the Land, Rivers and Sea. We acknowledge and
pay our respect to the Elders, both past and present of all
Nations.
Project Assessment: Determine business requirementsCriteria
requirements (1)

Student details
Student number
Student name
Assessment Declaration
This assessment is my original work and no part of it has been
copied from any other source except where due
acknowledgement is made.
No part of this assessment has been written for me by any other
person except where such collaboration has been authorised by
the assessor concerned.
I understand that plagiarism is the presentation of the work,
idea or creation of another person as though it is your own.
Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not
appropriately cited. No part of this assessment is plagiarised.
Student signature and Date

Document title: ICTICT401_AE_Pro_2of2Page 25 of 25
Resource ID:
TBS_19_002_ICTICT401_AE_Pro_1of2STUDENT NAME:
Version:20190301
Date created:1 March 2019
Date modified:10 June 2021
For queries, please contact:
Technology and Business Services SkillsPoint
Building B, Level G, Corner Harris Street and Mary Ann Street,
Ultimo NSW 2007

© 2020 TAFE NSW, Sydney
RTO Provider Number 90003 | CRICOS Provider Code: 00591E
This assessment can be found in the Learning Bank
The contents in this document is copyright © TAFE NSW 2020,
and should not be reproduced without the permission of the
TAFE NSW. Information contained in this document is correct
at time of printing: 10 June 2021. For current information
please refer to our website or your teacher as appropriate.
Assessment instructions
Table 1 Assessment instructions
Assessment details

Instructions
Assessment overview
The objective of this assessment is to assess your knowledge
and performance to gather information, and determine and
confirm system requirements.
Assessment Event number
2 of 2
Instructions for this assessment
This is a project-based assessment and will be assessing you on
your knowledge and performance of the unit.
This assessment is in five (5) parts:
1. Gather information
2. Document requirements
3. Verify business requirements
4. Obtain final approval
Appendix 1 – Assessment Checklist
Appendix 2 – Observation Checklist 1
5. Assessment Feedback
Check the Assessment and Observation checklists to ensure that
you’ve covered all the required tasks.
Submission instructions
On completion of this assessment, you are required to upload it
for marking.

Ensure you have written your name at the bottom of each page
(in the footer) of your assessment.
Submit the following documents for each part:
Part 1: Gather information
Records of responses from information gathering – this may
include documents, recordings etc. as appropriate for the
method used
You will also be observed by your assessor.
Part 2: Document requirements
Business requirements and specifications report V1
Part 3: Verify business requirements
Signed verification checklist
You will also be observed by your assessor.
Part 4: Obtain final approval
Business requirements and specifications report final version
You will also be observed by your assessor. It is important that
you keep a copy of all electronic and hardcopy assessments
submitted to TAFE and complete the assessment declaration
when submitting the assessment.
What do I need to do to achieve a satisfactory result?
To achieve a satisfactory result for this assessment, all
questions must be answered correctly and all items in the
Assessment and Observation Checklists must be marked
Satisfactory.
Assessment conditions

Assessment conditions for Parts 1.1, 3.2 and 4.2 will replicate
the workplace, including noise levels, production flow,
interruptions and time variances. These will need to be
conducted over the phone with your assessor.
Assessment may be undertaken in normal classroom conditions,
which is assumed to be noisy and similar to workplace
conditions This may include phones ringing, people talking and
other interruptions.
What do I need to provide?
USB drive or other storage method to save work to, with at least
500MB free space.
What will the assessor provide?
Access to Moodle.
Scenario documents as outlined in assessment:
· Red Opal Innovations report template
(ROI_Report_template.dotx).
Due date and time allowed
Refer to the Unit Assessment Guide for the due dates.
The estimated time for a student to complete this assessment is
4 hours. However there is no time limit for students to complete
this assessment.
Supervision
Parts 1.1, 3.2 and 4.2 will need to be observed either over the
phone or via a videoconferencing method such as Skype.
Parts 1.2, 2, 3.1 and 4.1 are an unsupervised, take-home

assessment. Your assessor may ask for additional evidence to
verify the authenticity of your submission and confirm that the
assessment task was completed by you.
assessment.
Specific task instructions
Continue on with the same scenario you used for Assessment 1.
The next steps are to gather information that will help you in
writing a business requirements and specifications report.
You’ll then need to verify the documentation with the client and
request final approval.
Stakeholder Instructions : In Part 3, the person roleplaying the
client must find at least 2 issues or changes that are required to

be made to the submitted document, as per the Document
Requirements in Part 2.Part 1: Gather informati on
In order to identify the business and system requirements, you
will need to use your information gathering plan to elicit
information from your stakeholders.
You will need to arrange for at least three stakeholders (work
colleagues/clients or other students) to attend a meeting. You
can use the same three stakeholders for each task below,
however the questions being asked must be different.
1. During the meeting you will need to demonstrate your
information gathering method that involves verbal
communication. The meeting should run for 5-10 minutes,
including assessor questions. You need to follow your
information gathering plan.
· Your assessor will observe this task and complete the Part 1
Observation Checklist.
· You must use plain English, effective listening and
questioning techniques, and relevant terminology to elicit
information and feedback
· You need to record the responses from your stakeholders using
an appropriate technique e.g. typed document of responses,
video recording of interview etc.
Participants:
· Stakeholders (clients, manager etc.) – arrange for three people
to participate as stakeholders

· IT Trainee (this is you).
2. Perform your second information gathering method according
to your plan.
· You need to record the responses from your stakeholders using
an appropriate technique e.g. online survey tool, typed
document of responses etc.
Part 1 Observation Checklist
The Observation Checklist will be used by your assessor to
mark your performance in Part 1.1. Use this Checklist to
understand what skills you need to demonstrate. The Checklist
lists the assessment criteria used to determine whether you have
successfully completed this assessment event. All the criteria
must be met. Your demonstration will be used as part of the
overall evidence requirements of the unit. The assessor may ask
questions while the demonstration is taking place or if
appropriate directly after the activity has been completed.
Table 3: Observation Checklist 1
TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments

(Describe the student’s ability in demonstrating the required
skills and knowledge)
1.
Effectively undertakes information gathering method using
verbal communication despite noise and distractions, timeframe
between 5 and 10 minutes according to their plan
Uses plain English and relevant terminology.
Uses effective listening and questioning techniques to elicit
information.
Records responses from the role play using appropriate
techniques.☐☐
Assessors are to record their observations in sufficient detail to
demonstrate their judgement of the student’s performance
against the criteria required.
Part 1 Assessment Checklist
The following checklist will be used by your assessor to mark
your performance in Part 1.2. Use this checklist to understand
what skills and/or knowledge you need to demonstrate in your
submission/presentation. All the criteria described in the
Assessment Checklist must be met. The assessor may ask
questions while the submission/presentation is taking place or if
appropriate directly after the task/activity has been
submitted/completed.

Table 3 Assessment Checklist
TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
2.
Performs a second information gathering method according to
their plan.
Records responses from the second information gathering
method using appropriate techniques.☐☐
Part 2: Document requirements
Using the outcomes of your information gathering, as well as
relevant organisation documents, write a business requirements
and specifications report.
The report must be professionally presented, using the Red Opal
Innovations report template (ROI_Report_template.dotx)
(minimum 750 maximum 2000 words).
· Use correct spelling, grammar and plain English.
· Use relevant systems-related text and terminology where
necessary.
· Include a title page with your name, report title and date, table

of contents, version control, sign-off table and references (cite
any sources using Harvard referencing).
Required:
Include the following content in your report, with appropriate
headings:
1. The background to the project, including the following:
· The problem statement (revised if necessary)
· A context diagram identifying the current system, clients and
other stakeholders
· A stakeholder analysis table, including a list of the
stakeholders and their roles, their requirements or interests, and
their involvement in the project
· Any business rules, assumptions and cost constraints that
apply
2. An overview and analysis of the data gathering you
performed, including a list of identified business
issues/problems
3. An outline of the prioritised critical business and system
requirements, considering and referring to the current system
functionality, geography and environment. Include the
following:
· Functional requirements – these may include any of the
following, as appropriate to your project:

· Use-case diagrams and descriptions
· Context diagram
· Process diagram
· Other technical diagrams or specifications
· Non-functional requirements – include any relevant
assumptions and constraints
· Physical system requirements.
4. An outline of the changes required to the current system in
order to implement the new system
5. A conclusion summarising your recommendations.
your performance against the assessment criteria of
documenting requirements. Use this checklist to understand
TASK #
Task performed

S
U/S
Assessor Comments
1.
Documents the problem statement, current system functionality,
geography and environment, clients and stakeholders (including
their roles and involvement), and any business rules,
assumptions and cost constraints that apply.
Writes a professionally presented business requirements and
specifications report of minimum 750 and maximum 2000
words.
Uses correct spelling, grammar and plain English.
Uses relevant systems-related text and terminology where
necessary.
Includes a title page with their name, report title and date, table
of contents, version control, sign-off table and references.☐☐
2.
Writes an analysis and overview of their data gathering,
including identified business issues/problems.☐☐
3.
Outlines and prioritises the critical business and system

requirements, including functional and non-functional
requirements, considering the current system functionality,
geography and environment.☐☐
4.
Outlines the changes required to the current system, in order to
implement the new system.☐☐
5.
Includes a conclusion, summarising recommendations.☐☐
Part 3: Verify business requirements
Before your business requirements and specifications report can
be submitted for final approval, you need to verify it with the
client to ensure that it’s accurate and meets their needs.
1. Create a verification checklist, including a sign-off section,
that will enable you to check your report with the client against
the following items:
· Is your report easily understood? Do others understand it as
you intended?
· Are there any differences of opinion about the content?
· Are there any missing, invalid or new requirements?
· Are the requirements in scope?
· Does each requirement align to the achievement of project
objectives and outcomes?

· Will the requirements resolve the identified issues?
2. Organise a meeting to verify your report with the client. The
meeting should run for 5-10 minutes:
· Your assessor will participate in and/or observe the meeting
and complete Part 2 Observation Checklist.
· Use plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback
· Submit your report to the client and go through each item on
your checklist with them, ensuring that you add explanation as
required e.g. you may need to point out how the requirements
are within the scope.
· Your client will indicate changes that are required to the
specification report (The person roleplaying the client must find
at least 2 issues or changes that are required to be made to the
submitted document, as per the Document Requirements in Part
2). You must respond with how you will address these new
requirements and note the changes that are needed on the
checklist.
· Ask the client to sign the checklist if they agree that it’s an
accurate record of the meeting.
your performance in Part 3.1. Use this checklist to understand

TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
1.
Creates an appropriate verification checklist to verify
documentation.
Completes verification checklist, including requested changes
and client signature.☐☐

TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
1.
Meets with client to discuss their report, timeframe between 5
and 10 minutes.
Effectively undertakes client discussion despite noise and
distractions.
Uses plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback.
Submits documentation to client, checking content against their
verification checklist.
Responds appropriately to required changes.☐☐

Part 4: Obtain final approval
During the verification process, your client indicated changes
that need to be made to your business requirements and
specifications report before final approval can be obtained.
1. Using a copy of your report, make the requested changes and
update the version number.
2. Organise a meeting (from 5-10 minutes) with the client to
request final approval of your business requirements and
specifications report:
· Your assessor will participate in and/or observe the meeting
and complete Part 4 Observation Checklist.
· Use plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback
· Submit your report to the client and explain the changes that
you’ve made according to their requests
· Ask the client to sign the sign-off page if they approve the
report.
your performance in Part 4. Use this checklist to understand

TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
1.
Updates documentation as required.☐☐

TASK #
Task performed
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
2.
Meets with client to obtain final approval of their report,
timeframe between 5 and 10 minutes.
Effectively undertakes client meeting despite noise and
distractions.
Uses plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback.
Submits documentation to client, requesting final approval.☐☐
Appendix 1: Assessment Checklist
your performance against the assessment criteria of your
submitted project. Use this checklist to understand what skills

and/or knowledge you need to demonstrate in your submission.
All the criteria described in the Assessment Checklist must be
met. The assessor may ask questions while the submission is
taking place or if appropriate directly after the task has been
submitted.
Table 2: Assessment Checklist
TASK/STEP #
Instructions
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
Part 1.1
Performs information gathering method using verbal
communication, of minimum five and maximum 20 minutes,
including assessor questions, according to their plan
Assessors are to record their comments in sufficient detail to
against the criteria.
Part 1.1
Records responses from the role play using appropriate
techniques

Part 1.2
Performs a second information gathering method according to
their plan
Part 1.2
Records responses from the second information gathering
method using appropriate techniques
Part 2
Writes a professionally presented business requirements and
specifications report of minimum 750 and maximum 2000 words
Part 2
Uses correct spelling, grammar and plain English
Part 2

Uses relevant systems-related text and terminology where
necessary
Part 2
Includes a title page with their name, report title and date, table
of contents, version control, sign-off table and references
Part 2.1
Documents the problem statement, current system functionality,
geography and environment, clients and stakeholders (including
their roles and involvement), and any business rules,
assumptions and cost constraints that apply
Part 2.2
Writes an analysis and overview of their data gathering,
including identified business issues/problems

Part 2.3
Outlines and prioritises the critical business and system
requirements, including functional and non-functional
requirements, considering the current system functionality,
geography and environment
Part 2.4
Outlines the changes required to the current system, in order to
implement the new system
Part 2.5
Includes a conclusion, summarising recommendations
Part 3.1
Creates an appropriate verification checklist to verify
documentation

Part 3.2
Meets with client to discuss their report, minimum five and
maximum 20 minutes
Part 3.2
Completes verification checklist, including requested changes
and client signature
Part 4.1
Updates documentation as required
Part 4.2
Meets with client to obtain final approval of their report,
minimum three and maximum 10 minutes
Appendix 2: Observation Checklist 1

TASK/STEP #
Instructions
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
Part 1.1
Effectively undertakes information gathering despite noise and
distractions
Date of Observation:
Part 1.1

Uses plain English and relevant terminology
Part 1.1
Uses effective listening and questioning techniques to elicit
information
TASK/STEP #
Instructions
S
U/S

Assessor Comments
Part 3.2
Effectively undertakes client discussion despite noise and
distractions
Part 3.2
Uses plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback
Part 3.2
Submits documentation to client, checking content against their
verification checklist
Part 3.2
Responds appropriately to required changes

TASK/STEP #
Instructions
S
U/S
Assessor Comments
Part 4.2
Effectively undertakes client meeting despite noise and
distractions

Part 4.2
Uses plain English and relevant terminology to obtain feedback
Part 4.2
Submits documentation to client, requesting final approval
Part 5: Assessment Feedback
NOTE: This section must have the assessor signature and
student signature to complete the feedback.
Assessment outcome
☐ Satisfactory
☐ Unsatisfactory
Assessor feedback
☐ Has the Assessment Declaration been signed and dated by the
student?
☐ Are you assured that the evidence presented for assessment is
the student’s own work?
☐ Was the assessment event successfully completed?

☐ If no, was the resubmission/re-assessment successfully
completed?
☐ Was reasonable adjustment in place for this assessment
event?
If yes, ensure it is detailed on the assessment document.
Comments:
Assessor name, signature and date:
Student acknowledgement of assessment outcome
Would you like to make any comments about this assessment?
Student name, signature and date
NOTE: Make sure you have written your name at the bottom of
each page of your submission before attaching the cover sheet
and submitting to your assessor for marking.
Project Assessment: Determine a business problemCriteria

requirements (1)
Student details
Student number
Student name
Assessment Declaration
This assessment is my original work and no part of it has been
copied from any other source except where due
acknowledgement is made.
No part of this assessment has been written for me by any other
person except where such collaboration has been authorised by
the assessor concerned.
I understand that plagiarism is the presentation of the work,
idea or creation of another person as though it is your own.
Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not
appropriately cited. No part of this assessment is plagiarised.

Student signature and Date
Document title: ICTICT401_AE_Pro_1of2Page 13 of 13
Resource ID:
TBS_19_002_ICTICT401_AE_Pro_1of2STUDENT NAME:
Version:20190301
Date created:1 March 2019
Date modified:10 June 2021

For queries, please contact:
Technology and Business Services SkillsPoint
Building B, Level G, Corner Harris Street and Mary Ann Street,
Ultimo NSW 2007
© 2020 TAFE NSW, Sydney
RTO Provider Number 90003 | CRICOS Provider Code: 00591E
This assessment can be found in the: Learning Bank
The contents in this document is copyright © TAFE NSW 2020,
and should not be reproduced without the permission of the
TAFE NSW. Information contained in this document is correct
at time of printing: 10 June 2021. For current information
please refer to our website or your teacher as appropriate.
uncontrolled. Please check to ensure this is the latest versi on.

Assessment instructions
Table 1 Assessment instructions
Assessment details
Instructions
Assessment overview
The objective of this assessment is to assess your knowledge
and performance to determine and document a business
problem.
Assessment Event number
1 of 2
Instructions for this assessment
This is a project-based assessment and will be assessing you on
your knowledge and performance of the unit.
This assessment is in four (4) parts:
1. Establish and document a business problem
2. Plan to gather information
3. Verify documentation
4. Assessment Feedback
Check the Assessment and Observation checklists to ensure that
you’ve covered all the required tasks.
Submission instructions
On completion of this assessment, you are required to upload it
to the Learning Management System or hand it to your assessor

for marking.
Ensure you have written your name at the bottom of each page
of your assessment.
Submit the following documents for each part:
Part 1: Establish and document a business problem
Problem statement
You will also be observed by your assessor
Part 2: Plan to gather information
Information gathering plan
Part 3: Verify documentation
Email to supervisor/project manager.
It is important that you keep a copy of all electronic and
hardcopy assessments submitted to TAFE and complete the
assessment declaration when submitting the assessment.
What do I need to do to achieve a satisfactory result?
To achieve a satisfactory result for this assessment, all
questions must be answered correctly and all items in the
Assessment and Observation Checklists must be marked
Satisfactory.
Assessment conditions
Assessment conditions for Part 1.1 must replicate the
workplace, including noise levels, production flow,
interruptions and time variances.
Assessment may be undertaken in conditions which is assumed
to be noisy and similar to workplace conditions, or within the

workplace. This may include phones ringing, people talking and
other interruptions.
What do I need to provide?
USB drive or other storage method to save work to, with at least
500MB free space.
What will the assessor provide?
Access to the Moodle.
Scenario documents as outlined in assessment:
Red Opal Innovations (ROI_Scenario.pdf)
Tough Trailers scenario (ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdf)
ROI organisation chart (ROI_Org_chart.pdf)
Red Opal Innovations report template
(ROI_Report_template.dotx)
Red Opal Innovations email template
(ROI_Email_template.docx).
Due date and time allowed
Refer to the Unit Assessment Guide for the due dates.
The estimated time for a student to complete this assessment is
3 hours. However there is no time limit for students to complete
this assessment.
Supervision
Part 1.1 will be completed over the phone with your assessor.
Parts 1.2, 2 and 3 are an unsupervised, take-home assessment.
Your assessor may ask for additional evidence to verify the
authenticity of your submission and confirm that the assessment

task was completed by you.
assessment.
Specific task instructions
You will be required to find a suitable business system for a
client. Use the scenario below to complete your assessment.
Scenario
You’re an IT Trainee with Red Opal Innovations
(ROI_Scenario.pdf) and your supervisor, Terrence Stewart, has
asked you to assist the Development team with a website project
for a new client, Tough Trailers.
You need to review the Tough Trailers scenario

(ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdf).
As you’re new to Red Opal Innovations, you should also look at
their organisation chart (ROI_Org_chart.pdf) so you know who
else to liaise with on this project.
Part 1: Establish and document a business problem
Your first step is to establish and clarify the business problem
that you’ll be investigating. This includes determining the:
· system boundaries
· scope
· relevant stakeholders
· most suitable development methodology to use
· objectives and expected outcomes.
Required:
You’ll need to use relevant workplace documentation, provided
in the scenario.
1. Discuss the issues of the project with your assessor to elicit
and clarify information (between 3 and 10 minutes). You will
need to arrange a suitable time to phone your assessor for this
task.
Make sure that you use:
· plain English
· effective listening and questioning techniques
· systems-related or relevant terminology, as necessary.

ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT

ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT

Similar to ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT (16)

More from MalikPinckney86

More from MalikPinckney86 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ICTICT401_AE_SR1ICTICT401_AE_SR1.pdfDocument title ICT