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 combine objectives that were similar, maintaining an argument that they were different, even if the difference was minimal. It was our understanding that the 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 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.

Comment [jld2]: Do not fully understand this comment. What were you evaluating your list of objectives for?

Comment [jld3]: Must criteria is not limited to just quantifiable objectives.

Our individual initial lists of alternatives were compiled and trimmed down into the 16 shown in our Delphi table. After our submissions and revisions we narrowed our objectives down to: • 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: • 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 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.

Comment [jld4]: HOW? Comment [jld5]: What submissions and revisions?

Comment [jld6]: How did you determine this?

Comment [jld7]: Poor grammar

This is the end of the memo? This memo could be greatly improved by: Write it in memo form as an executive summary Organizing it by project phase, with relevant headings to make it flow better. (Discuss each step & how they lead you to the final outcome) Discuss alternatives Referencing and discussing the attachments (what they mean/ how they were used) in the memo, including any scales used (i.e., consequence matrix) Providing more detail Reading through carefully to ensure proper grammar. Objectives reduced from 21 (Round Robin) to 16 (Delph scoring) – need – I only see where you mentioned eliminate 2 objectives Alternatives: initial # 31 (Consequence matrix) reduced to 16 (Delphi scoring): Need discussion about HOW you eliminated/combined these alternatives. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Maintain Morale Minimize Financial Loss Preserve Public Image Maintain Positive Public Relations Minimize effectd to established business relationships Maintain Credibility / Reputation Minimize Company Improprieties Preserve Integrity (corp. and Employees) Ensure that truth outweighs allegations 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 Minize Financial Loss Preserve Public Image Maintain Positive Public Relations Minimize Effects to Established Business Relationships Maintain Credibility/Reputation Minimize Company Improprieties Preserve Integrity (Corp.& Employees) Maintain Company's Best Interest Maintain Customer Relations Preserve Valid Evidence Minimize Negative Press Reduce Loss of Customers Edit Company Policies Educate Employees Key to the grading scale: G=Good F=Fair P=Poor P F P P P P P P P P F F P P P F G F F F F P F F F P F F P P P P P P P F F P P P F P P P P F F F F F F P F F F P F F P P F P F F F F F F G F F G F F G P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P P P P F F F P P P F P F P P P P F P P P P P P P F F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F . F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F P F P F P F F F G F P F F P F F G F F G F F P F G F F F F F F G F F G F F P F G F F F F F F G F F G F F P F G F F F F F F G F F G F F P F G F F F F F F F F G F G F F F F G F F F F F G F F G F F P F G F F F F F F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F F F G F F F F F G F G G F P F P P P P P P F P F P P P G F P P P P P P P F P F P P P G F P P P P P P P P P P P P P F F P

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 Delphi Method
SumFinal

12/5/2006

Importance Score

Alternative 1
Re-hire

Alternative 2
Offer Settlement

Alternative 3
Accept full blame

Alternative 4
Bring a counter-suit

Alternative 5
Incorporate employees to identify a solution

Alternative 6
Bribe jury members to vote in favor

Alternative 7
Place blame on an upper mgmt. employee rather than company.

Alternative 8
Take the case to trial

Objective 1 Max Min Average Objective 2 Max Min Average Objective 3 Max Min Average Objective 4 Max Min Average Objective 5 Max Min Average Objective 6 Max Min Average Objective 7 Max Min Average Objective 8 Max Min Average Objective 9 Max Min Average Objective 10 Max Min Average Objective 11 Max Min

0.05 0.03 0.04 0.37 0.17 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.05

2.00 0.00 1.20 10.00 6.00 9.20 10.00 1.00 5.00 10.00 2.00 4.80 10.00 1.00 4.60 10.00 0.00 4.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 10.00 1.00 4.00 9.00 0.00 4.60 9.00 1.00 4.20 0.00 0.00

10.00 5.00 7.60 9.00 1.00 6.60 5.00 2.00 3.60 4.00 0.00 2.80 5.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 2.20 5.00 2.00 3.40 10.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 4.00 6.40 5.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.60 6.00 1.00 2.60 4.00 0.00 2.40 4.00 1.00 2.80 2.00 0.00 0.80 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

8.00 2.00 4.60 8.00 2.00 6.00 8.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 5.00 6.20 9.00 5.00 6.60 8.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 0.00 4.40 9.00 5.00 7.20 10.00 0.00 6.20 8.00 5.00 6.80 10.00 7.00

9.00 0.00 6.00 5.00 0.00 3.20 5.00 0.00 3.40 6.00 0.00 4.20 8.00 0.00 4.80 6.00 0.00 3.80 5.00 0.00 3.60 8.00 0.00 5.60 5.00 0.00 3.80 6.00 0.00 4.40 5.00 0.00

2.00 0.00 0.60 3.00 0.00 1.40 2.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 0.20 8.00 0.00

3.00 0.00 1.80 5.00 0.00 2.40 7.00 0.00 4.20 7.00 0.00 3.60 7.00 0.00 4.40 7.00 0.00 3.80 5.00 0.00 2.60 4.00 0.00 2.60 3.00 0.00 1.80 4.00 0.00 2.60 1.00 0.00

8.00 4.00 6.60 6.00 1.00 3.40 6.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 4.20 5.00 1.00 4.20 6.00 1.00 4.60 6.00 0.00 4.20 7.00 1.00 5.40 8.00 0.00 4.60 7.00 4.00 5.20 10.00 9.00

The Rogue Division Project Delphi Method
SumFinal

12/5/2006

Importance Score

Alternative 1
Re-hire

Alternative 2
Offer Settlement

Alternative 3
Accept full blame

Alternative 4
Bring a counter-suit

Alternative 5
Incorporate employees to identify a solution

Alternative 6
Bribe jury members to vote in favor

Alternative 7
Place blame on an upper mgmt. employee rather than company.

Alternative 8
Take the case to trial

Average Objective 12 Max Min Average Objective 13 Max Min Average Objective 14 Max Min Average Objective 15 Max Min Average Objective 16 Max Min Average

0.09 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 10.00 1.00 6.00 10.00 1.00 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.40 8.00 4.00 6.60 10.00 4.00 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.20 1.00 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.80 8.00 5.00 6.60 9.00 5.00 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.40 5.00 0.00 3.60 5.00 0.00 4.00 7.00 0.00 4.00 10.00 0.00 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.40 7.00 0.00 3.40 5.00 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.80 4.00 1.00 2.60 5.00 4.00 4.20 1.00 0.00 0.20 4.00 0.00 2.40 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 Delphi Method
SumFinal

12/5/2006

Alternative 9
Settle outside of court

Alternative 10

Alternative 11

Alternative 12

Alternative 13
Cut down on the settlement amount or the amount spent in

Alternative 14

Alternative 15

Alternative 16
Have supporting evidence to show the public and employees

Go to court armed with Use the publicity as a Rewrite company policy indisputable proof that platform to run positive to avoid being sued Gilby and Adams were PR ads highlighting again for the same thing

Inform the employees Show the public and with the events that are employees that they are going on in court an ethical company

Objective 1 Max Min Average Objective 2 Max Min Average Objective 3 Max Min Average Objective 4 Max Min Average Objective 5 Max Min Average Objective 6 Max Min Average Objective 7 Max Min Average Objective 8 Max Min Average Objective 9 Max Min Average Objective 10 Max Min Average Objective 11 Max Min

8.00 0.00 4.60 9.00 0.00 6.60 9.00 0.00 5.00 7.00 0.00 4.20 9.00 0.00 4.80 5.00 0.00 3.20 6.00 0.00 3.80 5.00 0.00 3.20 8.00 0.00 4.40 7.00 0.00 4.40 2.00 0.00

9.00 0.00 6.40 10.00 0.00 6.20 10.00 0.00 7.00 9.00 0.00 6.40 10.00 0.00 7.40 10.00 0.00 7.40 10.00 0.00 7.20 10.00 0.00 7.40 10.00 0.00 7.40 8.00 0.00 5.40 10.00 0.00

9.00 0.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 2.60 10.00 0.00 7.20 10.00 0.00 7.80 8.00 0.00 6.00 8.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 0.00 3.60 6.00 0.00 4.60 7.00 0.00 4.80 10.00 0.00 7.40 4.00 0.00

4.00 0.00 1.60 4.00 0.00 2.20 5.00 0.00 3.40 4.00 0.00 2.20 6.00 0.00 3.20 5.00 0.00 3.20 10.00 0.00 5.40 6.00 0.00 3.40 5.00 0.00 3.40 5.00 0.00 3.40 4.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 0.20 8.00 0.00 6.00 3.00 0.00 2.20 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.60 2.00 0.00 0.80 2.00 0.00 0.80 2.00 0.00 1.20 5.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.60 2.00 0.00

8.00 0.00 5.00 2.00 0.00 1.40 5.00 0.00 3.60 7.00 0.00 4.60 4.00 0.00 3.40 7.00 0.00 4.20 5.00 0.00 3.60 6.00 0.00 4.20 6.00 0.00 3.00 5.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 0.00

10.00 0.00 7.40 4.00 0.00 2.40 9.00 0.00 6.80 9.00 0.00 6.20 8.00 0.00 5.60 8.00 0.00 6.20 7.00 0.00 4.60 8.00 0.00 6.00 8.00 0.00 5.60 10.00 0.00 7.40 5.00 0.00

7.00 0.00 5.40 4.00 0.00 3.20 6.00 0.00 4.60 8.00 0.00 5.60 5.00 0.00 4.40 8.00 0.00 5.40 3.00 0.00 2.20 7.00 0.00 4.20 7.00 0.00 4.80 9.00 0.00 5.80 9.00 0.00

The Rogue Division Project Delphi Method
SumFinal

12/5/2006

Alternative 9
Settle outside of court

Alternative 10

Alternative 11

Alternative 12

Alternative 13
Cut down on the settlement amount or the amount spent in

Alternative 14

Alternative 15

Alternative 16
Have supporting evidence to show the public and employees

Go to court armed with Use the publicity as a Rewrite company policy indisputable proof that platform to run positive to avoid being sued Gilby and Adams were PR ads highlighting again for the same thing

Inform the employees Show the public and with the events that are employees that they are going on in court an ethical company

Average Objective 12 Max Min Average Objective 13 Max Min Average Objective 14 Max Min Average Objective 15 Max Min Average Objective 16 Max Min Average

0.80 10.00 0.00 5.80 4.00 0.00 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.40 5.00 0.00 3.40 9.00 0.00 6.40 1.00 0.00 0.20 3.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.60 10.00 0.00 8.00 9.00 0.00 6.40 2.00 0.00 0.60 4.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.00 5.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 2.40 10.00 0.00 8.00 6.00 0.00 3.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.80 3.00 0.00 1.40 2.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.60 4.00 0.00 2.20 3.00 0.00 2.20 3.00 0.00 2.00 10.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.20 8.00 0.00 5.20 10.00 0.00 7.60 2.00 0.00 0.80 9.00 0.00 5.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.40 5.00 0.00 3.20 9.00 0.00 5.80 2.00 0.00 0.80 9.00 0.00 5.20 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 Memo 10 Nominal Group output 10 Consequence matrix 10 Delphi Scoring matrix 10 Risk Profile 5 Risk Desirability matrix 5 TOTAL 50

Points Awarded 5 9 5 10 2.5 2.5 34

Final score 34/50 = 68%

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful