This case study involves an evaluation of implied assumptions within the work environment. It will analyze the behavior within the working relationship between co-workers, as well as show the difference between logical and emotional thought process and reactions. It will also recognize misleading reasoning and assess the reliability of arguments. Finally, it will identify problems within the work environment itself and attempt to construct solutions to solve these problems. Hypothesis
The problem is maintaining an organized working environment and the goal is a product launch on time and within budget. After reviewing all of the confidential documents, corresponding e-mails, notes and feedback there seems to be a presumption of what people want and need prior to any communication: A 15% budget cut should work for all departments
Staff shortages are assumed to equal a short product development timetable and proper service maintenance. No face-to-face discussion for fear of a heated confrontation. A few explanations of the arguments are presented by key employees: A 15% budget cut is needed to maintain a position in the market place, and the product must be launched on the firm deadline. Contracting an outside software firm to finish the product will save time and still enable them to meet the deadline. Lack of confidence among co-workers is damaging to the organization of the project.
Evaluations of arguments as being sound or unsound/emotional or logical: 1.
15% budget cuts for all departments - Argument is both logical and sound. 2.
An August launch date - Argument is both unsound and emotional. 3.
Capability to meet deadline - Argument is unsound and illogical. 4.
Launching unfinished products an acceptable policy - Argument is unsound and illogical 5.
An understaffed department will be unable to meet deadline - Argument is sound. 6.
Stating employees should not equate a budget crunch with layoffs because of a goal to not let anyone go - This argument is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document