MM2_group1FINAL.docx | Brainstorming

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 3 | Pages: 8

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
Forum Minutes Names: Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes, Calvin White MINUTES MEETING CALLED BY Group 1 TYPE OF MEETING eDiscussion NOTE TAKER Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti) DATE(S)/TIME September 18, 2016 – October 2, 2016 ATTENDEES Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes, Calvin White ABSCENT John Taylor Agenda To
Transcript
  Forum MinutesNames: Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes, Calin !hite M N#$%S   MEETING CALLED BY Grou& ' TYPE OF MEETING eiscussion NOTE TAKER Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti) DATE(S)/TIME Se&temer '*, +'- . /ctoer +, +'- ATTENDEES Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes, Calin !hite ABSCENT 0ohn $aylor   Agenda $o&ic (s) MEETING DURATION:   DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill CommitteeIn what ways does the Committee find itself in a complex, uncertain, and/or dynamic environment as it develops its recommendations The degree of situational variables (degree of spill): ã Oil companies have a very dangerous business and as history has proven accidents happen ã The committee has to provide a plan that both covers the worst of the worst (Exxon, Gulf Oil pill, etc!) to ust minute lea# at the terminal ã Every scenario is a hypothetical ã $ll plans always fail at the first sign of adversity (personal experience), which means you need to have a plan that is easily adaptable to any situation ã %ifferent possible causes and locations of spills&esults of spills: ã %evastates the immediate area and can have detrimental effects on wildlife, potable water, etc! ã Each type of spill is a result of numerous factors ã %ifferent scenarios for spills can have different implications: sense of urgency, efficiency, environmental affect, financial, logistics, social and public relations ã 'ow could any decision hold up over time: for example will euipment still be usableavailablerelevant in * years+ yearslonger-The .ommittee and company itself is complex and dynamic: ã  /o initial direction or agenda  ã Off topic 0worst case0 arguments ã Emotions are running high ã Tying up extensive capital to ust allow euipment to be maintained for a ust1in1caseemergency is a concern for some! ã There2s no actual leadership or roles assigned to anyone! 3t2s pretty much acollaborative opinion debate where no actual solution could come from! CONCLUSIONS $ variety of hypothetical scenarios that could happen over months, years, or decades, is creating a complex and uncertain environment! This is compounded by the different variables that contribute in varying degrees to each scenario 1 efficiency, environmental, financial, logistics, social and public relations! DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee!hat heuristics or iases is the Committee encounterin# in the case narrative $if any% Are these likely to e trou lesome &ave they already een trou lesome There is clearly a fair amount of bias at play here! The main biases at play are excessive individualism, confirmation, and availability! Each of these together is not only li#ely but has already been troublesome! The meeting has been driven by emotion and not clear headed brainstorming and problem solving! The biases already at play have led to the firsthour of the meeting arguing about what spills are more important! ã Excessive individualism (self1interest) 1 very clear each member of the committee is approaching the problem from their respective departments! o .hris seems to really be focused on the money aspect! 'e is constantly arguing hiscase about tying up the company2s capital in spill euipment for 4ur#y Oil! 'e is only worried about his department as a member from the 5inance %epartment! 'egives an idea but he still hadn2t reali6ed that it is going to cost no matter which direction they choose to go! 'e seems to have an anchoring bias leaving him to only see the negative of having euipment sit idly by! 'is sole focus is on the money and doesn2t seem to be able to see other perspectives! .hris would rather the team #eep extensive records to be able to getutili6e euipment when it2s actually needed which is a tas# that would lie with another department! o andy on the other hand has been arguing with another team member about resources for a spill, and still no ideas on how to approach the problem! he seemsmore interested in proving that this venture is a bridge to far and not worth her time (mental bloc#s with assumptions and overreliance on logic)! he seems to thin# that everything is a disaster waiting to happen and continuously provides her opinion on the matter! andy is sole focus is on the cleanup and how it can be done uic#ly! he is able to present many different ways in which a spill can occur and has solutions to those problems but she is unable to see the money side! o 7at seems to be restless and would li#e a solution now throwing out different uestions but not actually guiding the group to elaborate on their suggestions to try and find a common ground! ã .onfirmation bias: no one is really presenting alterative options along with their ideas! ã $vailability 8ias: The team has to ma#e a decision based on the environment today  but the plan will be in1place for much longer than that! The team is considering the euipmenttechnologyavailable capital for investment as of today but not what couldchange in the next +*+ years! ã The team also has to be careful to not be overly cautious (loss aversion bias) in evaluating and ma#ing this decision! 3t seems li#e the lac# of framing the problem  and the biases already at play have led to the first hour of the meeting being arguing! The team should step bac#, set the stage for decision ma#ing, recogni6e their  biasesobstacles and frame the problem before discussing the options! ã Overconfidence in their own udgment: all the team members are +9 certain that a lea# or spill will happen at certain locations but then dismiss how extensive the spill could be no matter where the spill srcinates! ã 3nstead of ma#ing organi6ed strategic decision they are using emotions to drive the meeting! $nd since they are using the 3ntuitive or system one type of response they are unaware of how the emotions are driving their ideas and thoughts! 3f they were to each ta#e a step bac# and organi6e their thoughts and suggestions they may be able toinvo#e the ystem two or contrast reflective thin#ing to allow a slower more thoughtful debate! CONCLUSIONS The main biases at play are excessive individualism, confirmation, and availability! $n emotionally driven meeting has resulted in little progress or even understanding of the  problems at hand! Each member of the committee needs to refocus and step outside their own departments and biases in order to not only wor# together but do what is best for the companyand environment! DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill CommitteeIs framin# #ettin# in the way for any mem ers of the Committee 5raming is the root of the problem! ã hould the focus be on spills that have already happened or spills that could happen- ã ince the problem statement is not clearly framed no one is ta#ing into consideration all possible viewpoints! ntil the problem is framed, there is no way to adeuately conduct analysis for solutions! ã ;oo#ing again at what Garvin has to say about decision ma#ing, <$ successful decision depends on a clear understanding of the issue at hand and its root cause(s)!= 'ow can the team possible generate alternatives, evaluate those alternatives and ma#e a decision without a full understanding of the problem- ã >ith everyone showing confirmation bias and with the inability to have anyone  provide a framewor# no amount of meetings or brainstorming will help this committee determine a course of action!andy and .hris are worried about spills that have /OT happened! They seem so enamored  by dealing with a ma or oil spill (cost and more possible worst case scenarios) that they are not loo#ing at ways to prevent it from happening or how to mitigate a spill?period! >hat the team leader should have started with for uestions is: why has management as#ed them to  prepare a response plan- 'ave there been accidents with other companies- 'ow did they respond- >hat was the fallout after the spill- There have been other ma or oil spills in the  past (3 #now 3 am teetering on halo effect) but how did those companies contain the spill- >hat has not been thought of to contain a spill- $ny there new technologies out there that have been proven to reduce environmental damage or speed up the recovery process- 3f they were given uestions in that aspect it might have focused them on providing creative solutionsto a very serious (potential) problem!.ommittee needs to define the problem! ã The team should fully outline the problem at hand including root cause analysis and decision ma#ing ob ectives! ã ince the problem statement is not clearly framed no one is ta#ing into consideration  all possible viewpoints! ã Everyone is worried about all types of extreme cases and not really narrowing down the problem! ã 3s there a clearly defined team leader-7at did try to set up a framewor#! ã The attempt was to ta#e a different perspective on the problem at hand and to simplify the need for this euipment and how might these spill occur! ã 8ac# fired 1 the generali6ed uestion was posed, per 7at, and there were no other framing uestions to guide anyone bac# to the problem at hand! /o one was able to weigh different outcomes for the problem! The team leader should have been able to recogni6e this and focus everyone to a couple of scenarios and solutions, posing additional uestions to lead the team in the right direction! $ more defined 0framewor#0 needs to be established ã The group needs to refocus 1 why did management assign this tas#- >hat specificallythey are loo#ing for his committee to solve- ã 4ore data in terms of the amount of spills per year, the amount of money it would cost the company to have euipment available at all times for the spills, to determine if it is worth having the euipment stay in one area or be able to pull euipment from different areas of the country if need be and how much that would cost ã 8rainstorming session needed to clarify ob ectives!  Emotions are too high right now 1 brainstorming or diagrams will help their situation until they ta#e a step bac#  CONCLUSIONS The framewor# was initially lac#ing and instead the problem too generali6ed which lead the group astray! 5raming therefore has become the main problem because without a clear, defined problem and set of ob ectives, the team is off on their own agendas and tangents! This has led to an emotional debate with each member unable to see anything outside their own biases! DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee!ould rainstormin# or other creative exercises help the Committee move forward !hy or why not 8rainstorming would help the committee move forward: ã et up an environment where no one should critici6e, dispute or correct an idea! This would allow all members to offer their ideas without impediment, which could stop the arguing later on when the planning starts! 3t could also provide that spar# needed for the group to be more creative to answering the problem posed by the leadership! ã This would allow the team to evaluate all the variables at play (cost, benefits, intangibles (reputation), time, and feasibility) but also to conduct some scenario development! ã The cause and affect analysis or 5ishbone diagram would wor# very well at helping  prioriti6e issues and wor# on solutions!
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks