Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points 100 Due on Tuesday, November.docx

Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points: 100: Due on Tuesday,
November 20, 2018 online.
Ethical Oath: By entering my full name below this statement I
confirm that I am the only one who has been involved in
analyzing this case and writing the answers, using the ppts and
notes from class and have not copied or shared my answers with
anyone. If found otherwise, I am willing to take up a new case
for analysis or any other assignment as provided by the
instructor and also understand that I could be reported to the
Ethics Committee.
Please answer section I then IV & V first, then address central
problem based on chapters 11 & 12 concepts, then work on
section III, VI and VII
Your Name: ………………………………………………..
Title of Case:
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………
Executive Summary - (Summary of sections I, II, III (whether
down or up), V, VI) (10 points)
I. The Protagonist (10):
II. Central problem (10):
III. Current state of outcome variables in the case for the firm
Job Performance and Organizational Commitment (10): Please
answer the same four questions below for each of the identified
characters
1. Level of Task Performance: (mention high, medium or low-

and whether dropping or increasing)
2. Type of Task Performance the character is good at: (routine,
creative, adaptive or a combination of any two or all three, and
whether it is high or low and what facts in the case show that)
3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (whether high or
low at the organizational or individual level and type of OCB),
Counterproductive behavior (whether engaging in bad behavior
or not (specify with example-and whether production, property,
personal or political deviance)
4. Whether affective, continuance or normative commitment
(explain why and if it is high or low or getting lowered), if Star,
citizen, lone wolf or apathetic (explain why and whether it is
changing).
a. Chris Peterson (Levels and Types of Performance and
Commitment):
b. Meg Cooke (Levels and Types of Performance and
Commitment):
c. Founders (Levels and Types of Performance and
Commitment):
d. Chris’ Team (Levels and Types of Performance and
Commitment):

e. Functional Specialists (Levels and Types of Performance and
Commitment):
IV. Key independent variables impacting the outcome variables
currently in the firm (20):
1. What was the type of task interdependence used by Chris’
team? Was it working?
2. Was the mission clear to Chris and her team? If not, what was
missing? (refer to slide 11 in chapter 11 ppt, and note points
under number 7 in that table)
3. Are member roles clearly defined in this case? Explain
briefly with examples from the case.
4. Did the team members have the necessary abilities to
complete the task? Explain briefly with examples from the case
if the tasks were disjunctive, conjunctive or additive and
whether it was helping or hindering the team’s performance?
5. How many members were there in Chris’ team? Was the team
size manageable?

6. Did Chris and her team members have an appropriate amount
of extraversion, conscientiousness and agreeableness? Was it
helping or hindering the team?
7. Was there an issue of similarity-attraction approach in this
case?
8. Did Chris and her team experience process loss, process gain,
motivation loss, coordination loss, social loafing or production
blocking? Explain briefly with examples from the case
depending on which ones they were experiencing.
9. Are there cohesion-based issues across teams in the
organization? Explain briefly with example from case.

10. Were Chris and her team members engaging in appropriate
taskwork processes in terms of boundary spanning, creative
behaviors and clear decision making? Which ones are missing,
give examples from case?
11. Were there communicator issues in this case? Who were the
two people affected by it? Give an example from the case.
12. Were there information richness related issues in this case?
What was the problem?
13. What were the teamwork processes that were missing in this
case? Explain briefly with examples from the case.
V. Based on your analysis in section IV, which two variables
seem to be having the most significant impact on lowering

performance and commitment in this organization which need to
be addressed immediately by the protagonist: (10):
Variable 1:
Variable 2:
VI. Given the above two selected variables, if you were the
protagonist, how will you address the two identified variables to
ensure the right decision is made for the company. (Please make
sure you use the two variables and then from the chapter slides-
identify the applications to use to rectify the problems and then
link it back to the characters and the case). (20):
VII. Based on the recommendation-What are the first three main
steps you will recommend the protagonist take to execute the
recommendation you made in section VI. (minimum 3 steps):
(10):

5
Topic: __________________________
Revised March 21, 2019
ORAL PRESENTATION GRADING SHEET
ANCHOR 108
NAME:
__________________________________________________
Date: _______________________
Grading Criteria:
• Email topic to instructors by deadline – 10 points SCORE:
_____ OUT OF 10
• Outline and works cited page in MLA format - 10 points
SCORE: _____ OUT OF 10

• Written self-evaluation – 10 points SCORE: _____ OUT
OF 10
• Time frame compliance - 10 points SCORE: _____ OUT
OF 10
(5-minute presentation with 2 min Q&A)
From To Points From To Points From To Points
2:01 3:00 7 points 5:15 6:00 9 points 9:01 10:00 5 points
• Incorporation of at least two critical thinking strategies
discussed during the semester into your application
of the framework to your topic. These can include, but are not
limited to, prior questions, domains of
thinking, elements of thought, and standards of thinking – 10
points
• Visual Aid and Delivery of Oral presentation - 10 points

• Oral Presentation-The ability to synchronize the main
framework of the semester to include Exploration,
Analysis, Synthesis and Synopsis/Storytelling - 40 points
• Any applicable penalties – (-5 points each) (missed
presentation, banned topic) SCORE: _____
TOTAL: _____ OUT OF 100
Topic: __________________________
Revised March 21, 2019
Oral Presentation Grading Rubric
1) Identifies, researches and collects quality data points/sources
that provides additional/valid data/evidence related to the issue.
(EXPLORATION)
Scant (0-5 points) Substantially Developed (5-10 points)

• Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value
judgments in relationship to sources.
• Deals only with a single source and fails to discuss other
possible perspectives, especially those salient to the issue.
• Does not have valid sources.
• Examines the evidence and sources of evidence; questions its
accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness.
• Addresses perspectives noted previously, and additional
diverse
perspectives drawn from outside information.
2) Identifies and considers OTHER salient perspectives and
positions that are important to the analysis of the issue.
(ANALYSIS)
• Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or
denies evidence without adequate justification.
• Confuses associations and correlations with cause and effect.
• Observes cause and effect and addresses existing or potential
consequences.

• Has used decision making matrix or other tool to clearly
distinguish between facts, preferences, and value judgments.
3) Identifies and assesses the key assumptions and incorporates
the analysis conducted into consideration of issues that the
research/position presents. (SYNTHESIS)
• Does not examine the assumptions and ethical issues that
underlie the issue, or does so superficially.
• Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and
addresses the ethical dimensions that underlie the issue.
• Has used SWOT analysis, pro/con tool, or other tool to aid in
consideration of issues.
• Has not only examined, but has formulated or exposed new
opinions, information or constructs in relation to the topic.
4) Identifies and presents the STUDENT'S OWN perspective
and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.
(SYNOPSIS/STORYTELLING)

• Addresses a single source or view of the argument and fails to
clarify the established or presented position relative to one's
own.
• Fails to establish other critical distinctions.
• Identifies, appropriately, one's own position on the issue,
drawing
support from experience, and information not available from
assigned sources.
• Has acknowledged one’s own basis.
• Provided a reasoned correlation between the first three parts
of
the framework and the position taken on the topic.
ORAL PRESENTATION GRADING SHEETANCHOR
108NAME:
__________________________________________________
Date: _______________________Grading Criteria:
ORAL PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL THINKING TOPIC
DUE DATES:
Topic Submission - Tuesday, October 29, 2019 by 6:00 p.m.
Oral Presentations - November 5 – December 10, 2019

Worth: 100 points
Each student will give an oral presentation in class. You will
need to select a topic with which you can use the
basic framework taught in the course which includes
Exploration, Analysis, Synthesis, Storytelling and
Exploration (again) to explain a topic using your new-found
critical thinking skills. Your goal is to explain to
your peers an issue that includes data, your analysis, and a
synopsis of the topic. Examples include, but are not
limited to: should you adopt or buy a puppy; the tiny house
movement; privatization of social security; the
death penalty (the list is endless). If you need guidance, please
see us after class. You will need to give this
some thought and we suggest that you think about areas where
you are not only passionate, but may have
done some preliminary research prior to this assignment.
Generally, the more knowledgeable the student is
about a topic, the better the oral presentation has been.
Purpose: This assignment is intended to help students feel
comfortable with presenting on a topic that must
entail research while incorporating critical thinking skills and
tools into the presentation. It also gives students
practice public speaking, producing formal outlines, and doing
research using multiple points of data
(triangulation).
The oral presentation must meet all of the following
requirements:
1. 5-minute oral presentation; 2 minutes for Q&A, if applicable
2. Typed, formal outline of oral presentation in MLA format to
be submitted via Canvas before your oral

presentation begins.
3. Typed, formal works cited page that includes at least three
sources (internet, book, journal,
newspaper, etc.) listed in MLA format to be submitted via
Canvas before your oral presentation begins.
4. Integration of these sources into your oral presentation.
Example: If my topic were why underwater
basket weaving should be an Olympic sport I may highlight
research about the health benefits of
underwater basket weaving and how oxygen deprivation makes
you more intelligent. I may also pull in
a story of my favorite underwater basket weaver and how he
likes to stick starfish to the sides of his
basket in order to win over the judges. Or I would try to find
any statistics/data (from a reliable source)
about the subject.
5. Completion of the self-evaluation form submitted via Canvas
before your oral presentation begins. You
must video record your oral presentation, watch it, and then
complete the self-evaluation form
critiquing your oral presentation and performance.
6. Use of visual aid. PowerPoint counts, but we also accept
additional aids to enhance your presentation
if they complement your topic. (If you were explaining
underwater basket weaving and had a
proficiency in the sport, you could fly all of us to Turks and
Caicos to demonstrate how an actual basket
has been woven and how a certain type of swimsuit enhances
performance).
7. You are not allowed to read your oral presentation and will

be marked off for doing so: however, you
can use note cards to refer to if you get lost in your
presentation.
8. You must incorporate at least two critical thinking
strategies/tools discussed during the semester into
your application of the framework to your topic.
Grading Criteria:
• Outline and works cited page in MLA format - 10 points
• Written self-evaluation – 10 points
• Time frame compliance (5-minute presentation with 2 min
Q&A) - 10 points
• Visual Aid and Delivery of Oral presentation - 10 points
(Synopsis/Storytelling)
• Oral Presentation Structure-The ability to synchronize the
main framework of the semester to include
Exploration, Analysis, Synthesis and Synopsis/Storytelling - 40
points
• Incorporation of at least two critical thinking strategies
discussed during the semester into your
application of the framework to your topic. These can include,
but are not limited to, prior questions,
domains of thinking, elements of thought, and standards of
thinking – 10 points
• Email topic to instructors by deadline – 10 points

• Points will be deducted if your topic is from the banned topic
list.
Oral Presentation Grading Rubric:
1) EXPLORATION - Identifies, researches and collects quality
data points/sources that provides additional/valid data/evidence
related to
the issue.
• Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value
judgments in relationship to sources.
• Deals only with a single source and fails to discuss other
possible perspectives, especially those salient to the issue.
• Does not have valid sources.
• Examines the evidence and sources of evidence; questions its
accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness.
• Addresses perspectives noted previously, and additional
diverse
perspectives drawn from outside information. Uses a concept
map or other tool to guide research.
2) ANALYSIS - Identifies and considers OTHER salient
perspectives and positions that are important to the analysis of
the issue.

• Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or
denies evidence without adequate justification.
• Confuses associations and correlations with cause and effect.
• Observes cause and effect and addresses existing or potential
consequences.
• Uses decision making matrix or other tool to clearly
distinguish
between facts, preferences, and value judgments.
3) SYNTHESIS - Identifies and assesses the key assumptions
and incorporates the analysis conducted into consideration of
issues that the
research/position presents.
• Does not examine the assumptions and ethical issues that
underlie the issue or does so superficially.
• Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and
addresses the ethical dimensions that underlie the issue.
• Uses SWOT analysis, pro/con tool, or other tool to examine
ideas
and formulate or expose new opinions, information or
constructs
in relation to the topic.

4) SYNOPSIS/STORYTELLING - Identifies and presents the
STUDENT'S OWN perspective and position as it is important to
the analysis of the
issue.
• Addresses a single source or view of the argument and fails to
clarify the established or presented position relative to one's
own.
• Fails to establish other critical distinctions.
• Identifies, appropriately, one's own position on the issue,
drawing
support from experience, and information not available from
assigned sources.
• Acknowledges one’s own basis.
• Provides a reasoned correlation between the first three parts of
the framework and the position taken on the topic.
Additional Information:
- Students must submit via Canvas the topic on which they will
speak by Tuesday, October
29, 2019 by 6:00 p.m. If you do NOT hear back from us, your
topic is approved. If we think
you need to go in a different direction or have further questions,
we will contact you.

- Do NOT wait until the last minute! Be prepared to go on any
day that is listed on the
course schedule!
- If you sign up for a day and you do not show up, you will have
5 points automatically
deducted from your presentation unless you have an excused
absence as outlined in the
syllabus. You will be expected to go on the following class
period.
- Please review the banned topics before submitting your topic.
- Banned Topics List:
1. Legalization of marijuana
2. Euthanasia
3. Should college athletes be paid
4. Racism
5. Guns
6. Conspiracy theories
7. Abortion
8. Animal testing
9. Gay marriage
10. War on drugs
11. Vaccinations
12. Child abuse
13. Drinking Age
14. College tuition
15. Zoos and/or Sea World

16. School uniforms
ORAL PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL THINKING
TOPICDUE DATES:Topic Submission - Tuesday, October 29,
2019 by 6:00 p.m.Oral Presentations - November 5 – December
10, 2019Worth: 100 pointsGrading Criteria:Oral Presentation
Grading Rubric:- Please review the banned topics before
submitting your topic.- Banned Topics List:
1
Turnaround and Transformation at DSS Consulting
byDeborah Ancona and David Caldwelli
Late Thursday afternoon, Chris Peterson was reflecting on the
meeting she would have tomorrow with her boss, Meg
Cooke. The purpose of the meeting was to give Meg an update
on the status of the integrated budget and planning system her
team
had been working on over the last six months and plans for the
team to begin marketing this system and other new DSS
consulting
services to clients. Overall, Chris was quite pleased with the
work her team had done. The team had been formed as part of a
strategic
change, including a somewhat controversial re-organization at
DSS. The changes and new structure had created dissatisfaction
and a
fair amount of anxiety among many of DSS’s consultants, but

Chris felt her team had overcome their concerns to become a
very
effective group. They had worked together well, avoided the
conflicts that often plague these kinds of teams, and generally
maintained a high level of motivation and satisfaction. Most of
all, Chris was proud of the work her team had done. They had
created
a budget and planning system that the team believed would be
embraced by DSS’s clients. The team had not gotten much
support
from other groups at DSS in developing the system, so team
members had done much of the technical work on their own that
would
have normally been done by support people in the company.
Despite this, Chris was very pleased with the system and looked
forward
to sharing her team’s accomplishments with Meg.
DSS Consulting DSS Consulting was formed in 1997 to provide
administrative support to small school districts primarily
in the mid-west and mountain west. The company was founded
by three retired school district administrators to help small
school
districts that had limited staff deal with difficult and somewhat
specialized administrative pr oblems, such as negotiating labor
agreements or setting up procurement systems.
During the late 1990s, DSS grew rapidly as small school
districts faced more complex challenges and pressures to cut
costs,

particularly in administration. In response to this growth, DSS
organized itself into four practice departments—Procurement
and
Systems, Information Technology, Contract Negotiation, and
Facilities Planning—to deal with different types of
engagements.
Business came primarily through contacts the five founders had
developed. Once DSS was engaged, the project would be
referred to
the head of the appropriate practice group who would assign
consultants to the project. By 2005, a number of changes had
beg un to
affect DSS. First, the founders were cutting back their
involvement in the company. As a result, management decisions
were being
passed on to new leaders, including people hired from other
consulting companies. In addition, since much of DSS’s
business w as
generated through contacts established by the founders, their
reduced involvement was creating a need for new marketing
strategies.
Second, the types of problems for which districts were looking
for help were becoming more diverse and often didn’t fit clear
ly into
a specific practice area. The increasing complexities districts
were facing were both reducing the need for the relatively
straightforward projects DSS had been working on and creating
demands for new types of services. Finally, state standards fo r
school

districts were diverging from one another, so that certain issues
were more important in one region than in another. All of these
changes led to stagnation in revenue growth for DSS. Because
of these changes, the founders decided that a shift in strategy
would
be necessary for DSS to continue to grow and be successful. As
a first step, they promoted Meg Cooke to the position of Chief
Operating Officer. Meg had joined DSS in the Contract
Negotiation group about four years earlier after spending time
with a larger
east coast firm. Two years after joining DSS, she had been
promoted to head the Contract Negotiation group. The founders
and Meg
had concluded that if DSS was to continue to be successful, it
would need to expand beyond its traditional customer base of s
mall
districts and offer services to larger districts much more than it
had in the past. They felt that accomplishing this would require
developing new services and reorganizing into a more cross-
functional, customer-focused organization. A major part of the
strategic
change involved reorganizing DSS from a purely practice-
oriented functional structure to a hybrid structure. Most of the
consultants
would now be assigned to new cross-functional teams that
would be responsible for marketing and delivering services to
districts
within a particular geographic region. The practice groups were
maintained to provide specialized expertise to support the cross

-
functional teams in their work but with many fewer staff
members than in the past. The new cross -functional teams
were given two
responsibilities. Over the long run, the teams were to build
relationships with the school districts in their regions and
provide a f ull
range of DSS consulting services to those districts. The teams
were also to develop new consulting offerings in response to
district
2
needs. The expectations were that the cross-functional teams
would eliminate the functional “silos” that constrained the
services DSS
could provide and help DSS develop services that could be sold
to larger districts. Both these were seen as crucial steps in the
plan
to grow DSS.
Chris Peterson and the Southwest Region Team Chris Peterson
joined DSS in 2001. She started her career as a high school
teacher in a small school district in Iowa. When the district
began to deploy personal computers, sh e was asked to head up
the
implementation in her school. The process went so smoothly
that she was asked to give up classroom teaching and work full-
time

for the district in rolling out technology across all the schools.
After five years in that job she joined DSS as a consultant in the
Information Technology group. She rose to the position of
project manager in the group and had been very successful in
leading
consulting projects. When the decision was made to reorganize
into cross -functional teams, Chris was seen as a “natural” to
lead one
of the teams and was assigned to head the Southwest Region
team. Chris looked on her new assignment with a mixture of
excitement
and apprehension. Much of the excitement came from the
opportunity to lead a permanent team rather than coordinate
individuals
for short consulting projects. Her apprehension came in large
part because of some uncertainties about how the new strategy
would
unfold. Chris was aware that many people were ambivalent
about the new strategy and uncertain about the necessity of the
change
and whether or not it was likely to be successful. The result of
this was that there was a great deal of anxiety among many
consultants
about the future of DSS and their roles in the new structure.
Chris also suspected that the strategy was still evolving and
might change
as management got a sense of how well the new organization
was working. One of the decisions that Meg had made about
the n ew

teams was that the team leaders ought to have a great deal of
flexibility in inviting people to join their teams. Chris
welcomed this
opportunity. In thinking about who she wanted for the team,
she considered two factors. First, she wanted people who had
go od
skills and were experienced in the DSS consulting process.
Second, she felt she needed people who would be able to work
together
well. She believed this would be important because of both the
nature of the work to be done and her fear that the anxiety
created by
the change would boil over into dissatisfaction if people had
trouble working together. Chris gave a great deal of thought
about who
to ask to join the Southwest Region team. She decided that one
thing that would help the group work together smoothly would
be to
select people who already had some experience in working with
one another. Overall, Chris was quite happy with the team she
was
able to put together. She ended up asking two consultants each
from Contract Negotiations, Procurement and Systems, and
Information Technology, and one consultant from the Facilities
group to join the team, all of whom accepted. Even though the
consultants had not worked on specific projects with each other
in the past, they knew one another and had a great deal in co
mmon.

Nearly all of them had worked on DSS’s annual Habitat for
Humanity project and all had started at DSS at about the same
time.
Many members of the group socialized with one another outside
of work. At the first group meeting Chris realized that her
strategy
had worked well. Two of the consultants marveled about how
nice it would be to work with people who were both very
competent
and friends as well. Another consultant mentioned that he
didn’t know many people at DSS other than the members of his
new team
and he was really looking forward to the project. Like most
DSS consultants, members of Chris’s new team had some
questions
about the new strategy and leadership, however all believed that
their new team had tremendous potential.
Beginning the Work As DSS was making the transition to the
new structure, consultants continued to finish existing projects
even as they began working with their new teams. Chris
believed it was very important that her team members be located
together
as soon as possible even though the team would not be working
together full-time right away. She believed that co-locating the
team
would allow the group to get a quick start on the major
deliverable of developing new products for DSS and prevent the
group from
getting distracted by some of the uncertainties created by the

new structure. Chris was able to identify some space and a plan
that
could bring the full team together. Since none of the other new
team managers felt as strongly about the co-location of their
teams
as Chris did, Meg allowed Chris’s team to move together before
the other teams did. Once the team got settled into its new
location,
they quickly got to work. Chris believed that the first issue for
the team would be to share their experiences and use their
collectiv e
knowledge to identify one or more potential new products, and
that her initial job would be to help the group pull together their
experiences. The group had a number of meetings over the next
month discussing their perspectives. Chris was very pleased w
ith
what happened in the meetings. The team members seemed
comfortable sharing information with one another. If a
disagreement
emerged, the team dealt with it without creating animosity or
substantial delay. Chris was particularly pleased when two of
the team
members told her that this was one of the best groups they had
ever been a part of. Even though they were from different
functional
3

areas, the team members found that they had very similar
experiences in dealing with districts. All of them had at least
one story
about how they had been delayed in a project because the
people they were working with in the district were not able to
get accurate
data about budgets or long-term plans. What emerged from the
discussions was that small districts seemed to lack any
integrated
system for linking plans and budgets over time. The
superintendent of the district seemed to be the only person who
knew everything
that was going on and if he or she was not available it was
difficult to get timely information. The team concluded that
what small
districts needed was an integrated system for planning and
budgeting. Although most large districts had the systems or the
human
resources to do this, the costs were prohibitive for a small
district. The team determined, therefore, that a scaled down sy
stem could
provide the level of planning small districts needed at a price
they could afford. Further, this project both excited the team
and was
something they felt they could do well.
Planning the New Product As members of the team began
finishing the cons ulting projects they had been working on,
they
were able to devote more time to developing specifications for

the new system. The majority of the team were now spending
nearly
all their time working with one another and saw less and less of
the other cons ultants who were not on the team. Occasionally
people
would bring up what other consultants had said their teams were
doing, but this seldom generated much interest and was
sometimes
seen as almost a distraction to the group. At this point in time,
Chris had two primary goals for the team. First, she wanted to
keep
the group focused on the jobs of defining the new system and
determining exactly how DSS consultants would use it. Second,
s he
wanted to help the group avoid distractions and continue to
build cohesion. In addition to working with the team, Chris
tried to deal
with people outside the group. She had developed friendships
with two superintendents in small districts and when she saw th
em,
she took the opportunity to describe the system her team was
developing. Generally, the feedback she received was positive
and she
relayed this to her team. Chris also met occasionally with Meg
to update her on the project; however, these meetings were
generally
short. Chris observed that some of the other team leaders spent
more time meeting with Meg than she did, but she didn’t see
that
there was much need for her to do so, given the progress her

team was making.
Developing the Planning and Budgeting System Once the
specific design of the proposed budget and planning system was
complete, Chris felt it was time to share the work of the team
with others. She took a detailed description of the program o ut
to a
number of districts she had worked with in the past and asked
for comments. She also emailed the program description to
Meg and
some of the DSS functional specialists who would have to
provide some technical support in developing the consulting
protocols and
specifying parts of the code for managing the data base. The
conversations with people in the districts were informative and
more-
or-less positive. While generally expressing support for the
new system, people in the districts raised some specific
questions . Many
of the comments or questions were about how the system would
deal with issues that were unique to a district. A few questions
emerged about the price of the product and how it would differ
from other products already on the market. When Chris took th
ese
comments back to the group they tried to modify the initial
design and specifications of the program to meet the concerns
that were
raised. This worked well in the short run, but as more
comments came in, the group began to flounder as the team
tried to ad apt the

design to meet many of the questions from outsiders. The
reactions from others inside DSS were different from those in
the districts.
Most of the functional specialists who received descriptions of
the project simply acknowledged receiving them but did not of
fer any
real comments. Meg responded by asking a couple of questions
and saying that she and Chris would talk more about it later.
Overall,
the group was pleased with these responses; no one had raised
any objections to the program design or identified any
difficulties that
would slow the project down. As the group worked to change
the project specifications in response to the comments coming
in from
the districts, Chris felt that the effective process the group had
developed was beginning to break down. There were
disagreements
about how important various comments actually were and
progress in finalizing the specifications seemed to slow. Team
members
began to voice more concerns than they had in the past about
the direction DSS was going and question whether the team
would be
able to accomplish its task. Chris decided that something
needed to be done to get the group back on track. She cancelled
work on
the next Friday and had the whole team meet at a nearby nature
preserve. After a hike, the group returned to Chris’s house f or

a
barbeque lunch. Following lunch, the members spent the rest of
the afternoon discussing how they were performing and what
they
needed to do to finish designing the project. Overall, this
seemed to work quite well. When the team got back to work on
Mo nday,
they quickly finalized the specifications and identified the steps
that would be necessary to actually develop the product and
consulting
protocols. The team turned its attention to completing the
project. The project had four components: a database program
pro vided
4
by a third-party vendor; a program for putting information into
the database program written by an outside consulting firm; a
set of
forms districts would use to organize information about
schedules and budgets; and a set of instructions for consultants
to u se in
helping districts use the program and its results. The team split
into sub-groups to work on pieces of the final project. Putting
together the forms and developing instructions for consultants
were the most challenging parts of the project. Both of these
tasks

required detailed knowledge about the different types of
projects districts might undertake. Although members of the
team had the
knowledge and experience to complete most of this work, they
often found that they needed to draw on the specialized
knowledg e of
the DSS specialists in the practice groups. When a specific
question came up that the team could not answer, one member
of the
Southwest team would either email a question or have a face-to-
face meeting with the specialist. This worked well for simple
issues
but not for more complex problems. When team members tried
to get functional specialists to spend time working on these
more
complex problems, they were often not given much help and
were occasionally rebuffed. Chris found that she often had to
go directly
to the manager of the practice area to try to get support. Even
this didn’t always work. One event typified the problem Chr is
was
experiencing. She met with the head of Contract Negotiation to
identify the specific information about a district’s employees
that
would need to be entered into the program. He told Chris that
he would ask one of his specialists to work on it with the team.
When
one member of Chris’s team contacted the specialist, he was
told that this project had not been built into her schedule and
that she

would not be able to help him until other things got done.
When Chris learned of this she scheduled a meeting with Meg to
discuss the difficulty her team was having in getting
support. From Chris’s perspective, the meeting with Meg did
not go particularly well. Meg seemed sympathetic to the
difficulty
Chris was having getting support and suggested that she could
keep working with the practice group managers to get the final
elements
of the project completed. Chris had hoped that Meg would take
more direct action. When Chris reported back to the team, the
overall
reaction by team members was negative. There were a number
of comments about how decisions at DSS seemed to be more
“political” under the new organization and how the “new Meg”
seemed to be playing favorites.
Finishing the Project Despite the difficulty in getting support
from others in the organization, Chris knew that the project
was close to completion and could still be a success in the
market. Chris conveyed this to her team. She reminded them
that even if
they were not getting the type of support they would like, they
had the experience necessary to finish the program on their o
wn.
Chris’s optimism was contagious. The team increased their
efforts and did independent research to fill in their own
knowledge gaps.
The project came together quickly and within 10 days the team

had a full product ready for beta testing. A few weeks earlier ,
Chris
had recruited a district that would be willing to serve as a test
site and a date was scheduled for the team to go into the district
to
demonstrate the product.
The Meeting with Meg Cooke As Chris came into work on
Friday morning, she thought back over the last few months and
was quite pleased. The group had done a terrific job of
specifying and developing a new product that was ready for a
beta test.
Initially her team members had doubts about the new strategy
and their new roles but they had overcome those, and some real
obstacles, to finish the assignment. Chris was looking forward
to sharing this with Meg. From Chris’s perspective, the Friday
morning meeting with Meg started off very well. Chris outlined
the progress her team had made on the integrated budget and p
lanning
system. She spoke about how she was managing the beta test
for the program and of the positive comments she was getting
from the
district. She also talked about how effective her team was.
They worked together very well, were cohesive, and made
decision s easily
and quickly. Chris also mentioned that a number of the team
members had not supported the reorganization at first but
despite that
had invested a great deal of effort in making the team and
project work and were now committed to the new direction for

DSS. In
particular, Chris complimented the team members on their
initiative in finishing the project even when they didn’t have a
great deal
of help from the specialists in the practice groups. Meg thanked
Chris for all the hard work on the project and mentioned th at
she
had heard very positive things about Chris’s leadership from
members of the Southwest Region team. Meg then shifted the
conversation and asked Chris for a report about the types of
services districts in her region might be looking for DSS to pro
vide in
the future and whether some of the other projects the DSS
regional teams were working on would be of interest to the
districts. Chris
responded that she had a general idea of what the other teams
had been working on but did not feel she had sufficient
information to
present them to districts at this time. She went on to say that
her team had focused on their project and that the plan was for
them to
5
go out and meet with all districts in the region after the project
was in a beta test so that they would have something specific to
discuss.

She reassured Meg that although she did not have a clear answer
to the question right now, she would in the near future. Meg
then
asked Chris how she saw the integrated budget and planning
system being marketed to large school districts given that most
of them
already seemed to have either systems or personnel to do this.
Chris responded that she understood the concern and that, at
this point
in time, large districts might not be interested in the system in
its current form. She went to say that as the system was
modified and
expanded it would very likely be of interest to larger districts.
After this, Chris and Meg exchanged a few pleasantries and the
meeting
ended.
The Monday Morning Meeting
When Chris arrived for work on Monday morning she found that
she had a message from Meg asking if they could meet
for coffee at 10:30. Chris was curious about the meeting, but
quickly responded that she would be available, and the two
agreed to
meet at a nearby coffee shop. After getting coffee and talking a
bit about the weekend, Meg told Chris that after reviewing her
team’s
project and its potential, she had decided that DSS would not go
forward with the scheduling and budgeting project. When Chr
is

asked for the reasons for this decision, Meg replied that the
number of new products DSS could support was limited and that
teams
in the other regions had not reported any interest on the part of
the districts they had worked with for this type of product. Meg
also
said that she was concerned that the project would not be of
interest to the large districts. Chris responded that she certainly
understood the issue about large districts but did not agree with
Meg’s observation. She went on to say that she did not und
erstand
how other regional teams could say that there would not be a
demand for the product when they did not even know what the
planning
and scheduling system could do. Meg said that she appreciated
Chris’s concerns but that the decision to cancel the project w as
final.
An awkward silence followed this last exchange. After a
moment or two, Meg said that there was one more thing left to
discuss. She
said that the Southwest Region Team would focus exclusively
on marketing DSS products and not be involved in product
development work in the future and that there would be some
change to the composition of the team. Meg ended by asking
Chris if
she was prepared to lead the group in a new direction or if she
would be more comfortable and successful returning to the IT
practice
group as a functional specialist. After that whirlwind

experience followed by the bursting of a bubble, what an
interesting twist, Chris
thought to herself, and wondered about her next move!1
i This case was prepared by Professors Deborah Ancona, MIT
Sloan School of Management and David Caldwell, Santa Clara
Universit y, Leavey
School of Business. Copyright © 2010, Deborah Ancona and
David Caldwell. This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons
AttributionNoncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported
License. To view a copy of this license visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3. 0/ or send a
letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San
Francisco, California,
94105, USA.
1 Adapted note added later.
Case Study Analysis & Report
MOB 302-Managing Organizational Behavior
Anisfield School of Business
Ramapo College of New Jersey
1

What is case analysis?
A Case is a scenario about a character or characters engaged in
a situation seeking a solution in the form of a recommendation
from the person who is analysing their situation.
2
The Steps in Case Analysis include (based on Harvard Business
Case Studies):
Getting Oriented
Identifying Problems
Performing Analysis
Recommendation and Action Planning
3
Step 1: Getting Oriented
As apparent as it may sound- Read through the entire case
without any notes
Read it again and then prepare note addressing the following:
Who is the protagonist?
What is the decision that the protagonist has to make?
Who are all the key characters in this case?
What are the various factors that you identify in the case
(underline them) that fall under the chapters covered in class till
date?

4
Step 2: Identifying the Problem
What is the Central problem and What is the decision to be
taken:
This section has two sub-parts
First, you state the central issue-this is the main question you
are trying to answer (Be sure you double check this- you need
to be sure you have identified the exact question that requires a
solution)
Second, you must state, what decision the protagonist has to
take
5
Step 3: Performing Analysis
A. What is the current state of outcome variables in the case for
the firm:
First step is to assess the job performance level of the
protagonist and the firm as well as that of all the employees
with respect to their:
Task Performance (routine, adaptive, creative tasks)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Counterproductive Behavior
What is the type of commitment each of the key characters is
feeling towards the company (is it normative, affective or
continuance?)

6
Step 3: Performing Analysis
B. Key independent variables impacting the outcome variables
currently in the firm (explain as correlational relationships
between independent and outcome variables):
What are the variables or factors (that you have studied in the
corresponding chapters) that are causing Job performance and
Organizational Commitment to go down or up for the firm and
for the various characters in the case?
Among the above identified variables, which two variables are
most critical for this firm/characters to improve the two
outcome variables?
7
Step 4: Recommendation and Action Planning
Given the above performance analysis, here give your
recommendation to the character who has to make the decision
in order to resolve the case
Keep in mind that the recommendation must be a direct answer
to the central problem or decision that you identified in step 2.
Following this, provide action steps the person must take in
order to resolve the situation using the two variables identified
in step 3.
8

Case Report Format and Points- Total points:100 + 50 for
Presentation and Q&A
Please see the case report template uploaded on Moodle and just
respond to the questions. 100 points
Presentation- (5 mins)
Who the protagonist is?
What the problem is?
What were the main variables causing the problems?
What is your recommendation?
Q&A-(5 mins)
4 questions (10 points each)
You must know the reasons for your answers and any related
question to the topic (chapters) you have referred to in your
report. You must also know every aspect of the case very well.
Questions will come only from the above areas.
9

Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points 100 Due on Tuesday, November.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points 100 Due on Tuesday, November.docx

Similar to Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points 100 Due on Tuesday, November.docx (14)

More from jasoninnes20

More from jasoninnes20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case 4 Analysis Report Total Points 100 Due on Tuesday, November.docx