Rogue Division Project

MGS 4000

Mrs. Liggett De Jong

Purple Group
 Table of Contents Comment [jld1]: Table of Contents
is a nice touch.

1. Project Memo

2. Nominal Group Technique

3. Consequence Matrix

4. Delphi Scoring Matrix

5. Risk Profile

6. Risk Tolerance/Desirability Matrix

 Memo

Problem Statement: How should North Central Power Company respond to the
situation brought about by Mrs. Gilby & Mr. Adams’ allegations?

List of initial objectives:

Maintain morale
Minimize financial loss
Preserve public image
Maintain positive public relations
Minimize effects to established business relationships
Maintain credibility / reputation
Minimize company improprieties
Preserve integrity (corp. and employees)
Ensure that the truth outweighs the allegations
Demonstrate plaintiffs were acting out of character of company’s management
Maintain company’s best interest
Maintain customer relations
Preserve relevant valid evidence
Minimize negative press
Reduce loss of customers
Edit company policies
Do not admit guilt
Educate employees
Avoid long drawn out court proceedings
Reduce loss

Must and want criteria:

When we evaluated the list of ranked objectives we only considered those with
the lowest scores. As a result we missed some that were of little importance
because of our narrow focus of only low scoring objectives. We did not attempt to Comment [jld2]: Do not fully
understand this comment. What were
combine objectives that were similar, maintaining an argument that they were you evaluating your list of objectives
different, even if the difference was minimal. It was our understanding that the for?
musts and wants matrices would eliminate unnecessary objectives and
alternatives and that we should not trim them down before we applied said
process.

We learned after compiling our initial list of objectives that none of them were
quantifiable and therefore could not be considered “must” criteria. We also Comment [jld3]: Must criteria is not
limited to just quantifiable objectives.
eliminated the objectives “ensure that the truth outweighs the allegations,
demonstrate plaintiffs were acting out of character of company’s management,
do not admit guilt, and avoid long drawn out court proceedings.” This was done
because they were actually alternatives rather than objectives. The remaining
objectives as listed in the first Delphi table 3Purple1.xls were our want criteria.
Our individual initial lists of alternatives were compiled and trimmed down into the Comment [jld4]: HOW?
16 shown in our Delphi table. After our submissions and revisions we narrowed
our objectives down to: Comment [jld5]: What submissions
and revisions?
• Maintain morale
• Minimize financial loss
• Maintain positive public relations
• Maintain customer relations
• Preserve valid evidence
We also determined that we only had three valid and definable alternatives: Comment [jld6]: How did you
determine this?
• Re-hire
• Offer settlement
• Take the case to trial

Our team used the Nominal Group Technique, with limited success, to identify
our problem statement and trim all of our objectives into what we thought was a
good list. This did not work very well because we did not fully understand at that
time what the difference between alternatives and objectives, and how the Comment [jld7]: Poor grammar
processes we would use worked. Once we began using the Delphi Method we
began to understand the correct way of eliminating and specifying objectives and
alternatives. If we had figured this out earlier, much of our information could have
been narrowed down, making the whole process considerably easier.

This is the end of the memo? This memo could be greatly improved by:

ƒ Write it in memo form as an executive summary

ƒ Organizing it by project phase, with relevant headings to make it flow
better. (Discuss each step & how they lead you to the final outcome)
ƒ Discuss alternatives
ƒ Referencing and discussing the attachments (what they mean/ how
they were used) in the memo, including any scales used (i.e.,
consequence matrix)
ƒ Providing more detail
ƒ Reading through carefully to ensure proper grammar.
ƒ Objectives reduced from 21 (Round Robin) to 16 (Delph scoring) –
need – I only see where you mentioned eliminate 2 objectives
ƒ Alternatives: initial # 31 (Consequence matrix) reduced to 16 (Delphi
scoring): Need discussion about HOW you eliminated/combined
these alternatives.
ƒ Discuss Importance / Achievement Scores (what do they mean?
How did you come up with them) or outcome of Delphi method

Assign 5/10 points

 Nominal Group Technique

Problem Statement:

How should North Central Power Company respond to the situation brought
about by Mrs. Gilby and Mr. Adam's allegations?

Objectives:

1.Maintain Morale
2.Minimize Financial Loss
3.Preserve Public Image
4.Maintain Positive Public Relations
5.Minimize effectd to established business relationships
6.Maintain Credibility / Reputation
7.Minimize Company Improprieties
8.Preserve Integrity (corp. and Employees)
9.Ensure that truth outweighs allegations
10.Demonstrate plaintiffs were acting out of character of companies
management
11. Maintain Companies Best Interest
12. Maintain Customer Relations
13. Preserve Relevant Valid Evidence
14. Minimize Negative Press
15. Reduce Loss of Customers
16. Edit Company Policies
17. Do Not Admit Guilt
18. Educate Employees
19. Avoild Long Drawn Out Court Proceedings
20. Reduce Loss

Good
1 point deducted for typographical errors: 9/10 points
 CONSEQUENCE MATRIX
ALTERNATIVES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Want Objectives
Maintain Morale P F P F F P P P F F F F P F F F F F F F F P P P
Minize Financial Loss F G P F P P P F F F F F F G G G G F G F F P P P
Preserve Public Image P F P F F P F P G G G G P F F F F F F G G P P P
Maintain Positive Public Relations P F P F F P F P F F F F F F F F F G F F F P P P
Minimize Effects to Established Business Relationships P F P F F P P P F F F F P G G G G F G F F P P P
Maintain Credibility/Reputation P F F F F P P P F F F F F F F F F G F F F P P P
Minimize Company Improprieties P P F P F P P F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F P
Preserve Integrity (Corp.& Employees) P F P F F P P P F F F F F P P P P F P F F P P P
Maintain Company's Best Interest P F P F G P F P G G G G G F F F F F F G G F F P
Maintain Customer Relations P F P F F P F P F F F F F G G G G F G F F P P P
Preserve Valid Evidence F P F P F P F P G G G G P F F F F G F G G P P P
Minimize Negative Press F F P F G P P P G G G G F F F F F F F G G P P P
Reduce Loss of Customers P F P F F P P P F F F F F F F F F F F F F G G F
Edit Company Policies P P P P F P P P P P P P P F F F F F F P P F F F
Educate Employees P P P P G P F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F P P P

Key to the grading scale: .

G=Good
F=Fair
P=Poor

Scale for the alternative that each number represents:

1. Re-hire
2. Offer Settlement
3. Accept full blame
4. Bring a counter-suit
5. Incorporate employees to identify a solution
6. Bribe jury members to vote in favor
7. Accept partial guilt on a lesser scale
8. Place blame on an upper mgmt. employee rather than company. (fire upper mgr)
9. Take the case to trial
10. Take the case to trial and keep employees informed
11. Take the case to trial, keep employees informed, and change ethics code
12. Take the case to trial, keep employees informed, change ethics code, a
13. restructure management
14. Settle outside of court
15. Settle outside of court and keep employees informed
16. Settle outside of court, keep employees informed, and change ethics code
17. Settle outside of court, keep employees informed, change ethics code, and restructure management
18. Go to court armed with indisputable proof that Gilby and Adams were acting independently and wrongfully, and use the publicity as a platform to run positive PR ads highlighting p
National Power Company.
19. Settle out of court, saving the company money and avoiding a long and drawn out public trial. Use the press to present the truth about Gilby and Adams. Distribute relevant records
in addition to posting a public statement about Trans-National Power Company’s ethical standards and practices on the company website.
20. Go to court with relevant evidence proving that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the company, while running a series of ads highlighting the positive aspects of the company.
stewardship and philanthropy in order to retain current customers and attract new ones. Prove that Gilby and Adams were acting out of character of company management without demo
21. Attempt to have case thrown out by the judge by providing overwhelming evidence from the outset, saving the company’s image and avoiding the cost of a trial.
22. Rewrite company policy to avoid being sued again for the same thing
23. Setup guidelines that management is supposed to follow
24. Setup privacy policy for employees
25. Find a way to cut down on the settlement amount or the amount spent in court
26. Do something nice for the customers so that they get a good feeling about the company
27. Inform the employees with the events that are going on in court
28. Show the public and employees that they are an ethical company
29. Have supporting evidence to show the public and employees of being creditable
30. Do whatever it takes to maintain the company’s best interest
31. Only present relative and valid information
 The Rogue Division Project 12/5/2006

Delphi Method
SumFinal

Importance Score Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8
Re-hire Offer Settlement Accept full blame Bring a counter-suit Incorporate employees Bribe jury members to Place blame on an Take the case to trial
to identify a solution vote in favor upper mgmt. employee
rather than company.
Objective 1
Max 0.05 2.00 10.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 2.00 3.00 8.00
Min 0.03 0.00 5.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
Average 0.04 1.20 7.60 0.40 4.60 6.00 0.60 1.80 6.60
Objective 2
Max 0.37 10.00 9.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 6.00
Min 0.17 6.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.23 9.20 6.60 0.20 6.00 3.20 1.40 2.40 3.40
Objective 3
Max 0.10 10.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 6.00
Min 0.03 1.00 2.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.08 5.00 3.60 0.60 6.00 3.40 0.60 4.20 4.00
Objective 4
Max 0.05 10.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.00 7.00 5.00
Min 0.02 2.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.03 4.80 2.80 0.60 6.20 4.20 0.00 3.60 4.20
Objective 5
Max 0.08 10.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 8.00 0.00 7.00 5.00
Min 0.03 1.00 2.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.06 4.60 4.00 0.60 6.60 4.80 0.00 4.40 4.20
Objective 6
Max 0.15 10.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 0.00 7.00 6.00
Min 0.03 0.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.09 4.20 4.00 2.60 7.00 3.80 0.00 3.80 4.60
Objective 7
Max 0.03 2.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 6.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.01 1.00 2.20 2.40 4.40 3.60 0.00 2.60 4.20
Objective 8
Max 0.15 10.00 5.00 4.00 9.00 8.00 0.00 4.00 7.00
Min 0.03 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.07 4.00 3.40 2.80 7.20 5.60 0.00 2.60 5.40
Objective 9
Max 0.05 9.00 10.00 2.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 3.00 8.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.02 4.60 5.00 0.80 6.20 3.80 4.00 1.80 4.60
Objective 10
Max 0.13 9.00 10.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 7.00
Min 0.03 1.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
Average 0.08 4.20 6.40 2.00 6.80 4.40 0.20 2.60 5.20
Objective 11
Max 0.14 0.00 5.00 1.00 10.00 5.00 8.00 1.00 10.00
Min 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00
 The Rogue Division Project 12/5/2006

Delphi Method
SumFinal

Importance Score Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8
Re-hire Offer Settlement Accept full blame Bring a counter-suit Incorporate employees Bribe jury members to Place blame on an Take the case to trial
to identify a solution vote in favor upper mgmt. employee
rather than company.
Average 0.09 0.00 2.40 0.20 8.80 2.40 2.20 0.40 9.80
Objective 12
Max 0.06 10.00 8.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 1.00 7.00 4.00
Min 0.03 1.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Average 0.04 6.00 6.60 0.60 6.60 3.60 0.20 3.40 2.60
Objective 13
Max 0.15 10.00 10.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 5.00
Min 0.05 1.00 4.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00
Average 0.12 4.60 6.60 0.20 6.80 4.00 0.20 3.20 4.20
Objective 14
Max 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.20 0.00 0.20
Objective 15
Max 0.02 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 0.00 4.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.20 6.60 0.20 0.00 2.40
Objective 16
Max 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Average
Weighted Total 4.95 5.01 0.88 6.44 3.86 0.73 2.74 4.66
 The Rogue Division Project 12/5/2006

Delphi Method
SumFinal

Alternative 9 Alternative 10 Alternative 11 Alternative 12 Alternative 13 Alternative 14 Alternative 15 Alternative 16

Settle outside of court Go to court armed with Use the publicity as a Rewrite company policy Cut down on the Inform the employees Show the public and Have supporting
indisputable proof that platform to run positive to avoid being sued settlement amount or with the events that are employees that they are evidence to show the
Gilby and Adams were PR ads highlighting again for the same thing the amount spent in going on in court an ethical company public and employees
Objective 1
Max 8.00 9.00 9.00 4.00 1.00 8.00 10.00 7.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 4.60 6.40 6.00 1.60 0.20 5.00 7.40 5.40
Objective 2
Max 9.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 2.00 4.00 4.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 6.60 6.20 2.60 2.20 6.00 1.40 2.40 3.20
Objective 3
Max 9.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 9.00 6.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 5.00 7.00 7.20 3.40 2.20 3.60 6.80 4.60
Objective 4
Max 7.00 9.00 10.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 9.00 8.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 4.20 6.40 7.80 2.20 1.00 4.60 6.20 5.60
Objective 5
Max 9.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 5.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 4.80 7.40 6.00 3.20 0.60 3.40 5.60 4.40
Objective 6
Max 5.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 7.00 8.00 8.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 3.20 7.40 5.00 3.20 0.80 4.20 6.20 5.40
Objective 7
Max 6.00 10.00 6.00 10.00 2.00 5.00 7.00 3.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 3.80 7.20 3.60 5.40 0.80 3.60 4.60 2.20
Objective 8
Max 5.00 10.00 6.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 8.00 7.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 3.20 7.40 4.60 3.40 1.20 4.20 6.00 4.20
Objective 9
Max 8.00 10.00 7.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 7.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 4.40 7.40 4.80 3.40 3.00 3.00 5.60 4.80
Objective 10
Max 7.00 8.00 10.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 10.00 9.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 4.40 5.40 7.40 3.40 1.60 3.00 7.40 5.80
Objective 11
Max 2.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 9.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
 The Rogue Division Project 12/5/2006

Delphi Method
SumFinal

Alternative 9 Alternative 10 Alternative 11 Alternative 12 Alternative 13 Alternative 14 Alternative 15 Alternative 16

Settle outside of court Go to court armed with Use the publicity as a Rewrite company policy Cut down on the Inform the employees Show the public and Have supporting
indisputable proof that platform to run positive to avoid being sued settlement amount or with the events that are employees that they are evidence to show the
Gilby and Adams were PR ads highlighting again for the same thing the amount spent in going on in court an ethical company public and employees
Average 0.80 7.40 2.60 2.00 0.80 2.60 2.20 5.40
Objective 12
Max 10.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 8.00 5.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 5.80 3.40 8.00 3.00 1.40 2.20 5.20 3.20
Objective 13
Max 4.00 9.00 9.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 10.00 9.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 2.40 6.40 6.40 2.40 0.80 2.20 7.60 5.80
Objective 14
Max 0.00 1.00 2.00 10.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.00 0.20 0.60 8.00 0.00 2.00 0.80 0.80
Objective 15
Max 1.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 0.00 10.00 9.00 9.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.40 1.20 2.20 3.40 0.00 8.00 5.80 5.20
Objective 16
Max 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Average
Weighted Total 4.17 6.40 4.95 2.78 2.23 2.90 5.12 4.55
 Points awarded: 5 / 10 points
Requirements Points Points Awarded
Memo 10 5
Nominal Group output 10 9
Consequence matrix 10 5
Delphi Scoring matrix 10 10
Risk Profile 5 2.5
Risk Desirability matrix 5 2.5

TOTAL 50 34

Final score 34/50 = 68%