Example of case study
Case study example
Overview summary of the case
-Pear is an electronics company
-Discarding their ideas
-Communication is poor
Critical assumptions
-There at least three members per team and there are several teams
-Each members of the team have a basic understanding of common language
-Members within team come from varied demographics
-Negative attitude toward younger people
Satellite problems:
- Group members are skeptical about feasibility of ideas
-Members of the company are talking over one another
-Members feel their ideas are unimportant
-Members are disgruntled and frustrated
Primary problem: The structure of Pear company research and development department is inefficient at creating new ideas and creating proper communication flow between coworkers.
Pear does not have an adequate method of ensuring appropriate communication to make group decisions.
Implementation
Personnel: Younger members may feel discouraged and want to leave the company
Members will continue to be frustrated
Members morale will decrease
Members will stop trying to be innovated
Stop showing up to meetings
Organization: Organization can potentially loose profits because of the lack of new ideas, higher costs, and leave org.
Alternative solution: Theories found in textbook
-Brainstorming
-Nominal group (write down ideas, then read aloud)
-Delphi technique
-Devil’s advocate
Recommendation
-Why is this the best?
-Why is it better than the other alternatives?
-Does it solve all problems?
-How will it affect personnel and organization?
Implementation
Immediate:
Pay for training on how to assess/facilitate meetings
Ensure employees are aware of new group technique
Implement new technique in all meetings
Short:
Assess effectiveness of new technique
Conduct survey
Employee satisfaction
Long:
-Seek to provide additional decision making techniques in meetings
-Virtual
-Reward employees for working well in team
-Assess whether innovation
Overview summary of the case
-Pear is an electronics company
-Discarding their ideas
-Communication is poor
Critical assumptions
-There at least three members per team and there are several teams
-Each members of the team have a basic understanding of common language
-Members within team come from varied demographics
-Negative attitude toward younger people
Satellite problems:
- Group members are skeptical about feasibility of ideas
-Members of the company are talking over one another
-Members feel their ideas are unimportant
-Members are disgruntled and frustrated
Primary problem: The structure of Pear company research and development department is inefficient at creating new ideas and creating proper communication flow between coworkers.
Pear does not have an adequate method of ensuring appropriate communication to make group decisions.
Implementation
Personnel: Younger members may feel discouraged and want to leave the company
Members will continue to be frustrated
Members morale will decrease
Members will stop trying to be innovated
Stop showing up to meetings
Organization: Organization can potentially loose profits because of the lack of new ideas, higher costs, and leave org.
Alternative solution: Theories found in textbook
-Brainstorming
-Nominal group (write down ideas, then read aloud)
-Delphi technique
-Devil’s advocate
Recommendation
-Why is this the best?
-Why is it better than the other alternatives?
-Does it solve all problems?
-How will it affect personnel and organization?
Implementation
Immediate:
Pay for training on how to assess/facilitate meetings
Ensure employees are aware of new group technique
Implement new technique in all meetings
Short:
Assess effectiveness of new technique
Conduct survey
Employee satisfaction
Long:
-Seek to provide additional decision making techniques in meetings
-Virtual
-Reward employees for working well in team
-Assess whether innovation