Past+Project

This is my current progress just to give you guys an idea...feel free to let me know of any errors or needed improvements. -Sotha

We divided the tasks up so that one of us was the Sotha was the note taker for the interviews, Stephanie took notes on tactics, points and feedback, Melissa controlled the computer, and Mark assisted to communicate and execute actions. By breaking up duties, our goal was to give each member a central focus and minimize confusion. Sotha would manage interview information to assist in the decision-making process when choosing which tactics to utilize. Stephanie would also communicate previous tactics chosen and feedback that needed to be kept in mind when making choices. Mark would take information from the game and match it based on information from the person doing the interviewers and the person doing the tactic recording. The information would then be relayed to Melissa who would also assist in this decision making. Besides the core role, everyone engaged in discussion before making any final decisions on choosing a tactic. When the information from interviewees was recorded certain points were given extra attention. When an interviewee expressed concern or conflict with another employee, it would be noted as a strong factor in making a decision. The interviewee’s comments about other departments and personal opinions also helped to shape decisions. Every employee had an opinion on a solution to the company’s problem. This helped us to understand that particular person’s position within the company and their general attitude towards the environment and situation. Tracking the tactics that we chose and the amount of points awarded along with the feedback was a key aspect in indicating where we went wrong and how we should improve. It would be an obvious indicator of a poor choice of tactics when we received negative points awarded and negative feedback. By utilizing this information, we were able to progressively improve our outcome for the game, knowing when to make certain choices at key times. Mark's role required him to use the experience change model as a point of reference. All decisions would be made based on its relation to the experience change model. This decision-making process would involve examining tactics and determining which step it could be categorized under within the Change model. Melissa would also assist in formulating this decision as it was the most crucial part of the game. By delegating the roles in this manner, each group member was able to communicate efficiently. Despite the respective roles assigned, everyone was given a chance to voice their opinion about decisions being made. --I think it's fine. My only concern is that my flow is a bit different that yours. -Mark Q. --Thanks Mark, I think we can address that once we have all the parts together. -Sotha --Maybe it would sound less confusing if you just used our names for the tasks that we did? - Melissa --Thanks Melissa, I changed it to our names and it sounds much better. -Sotha --I agree with all points. However, I dont have our names in my section -Steph
 * Planning process **

Here's my part in doc format because it has some images. --Hey Mark I copied and pasted it for you to make it easier to edit. -Sotha 
 * Initial Process**

When our team was first introduced to the simulation game, we strategically decided how we were initially going to tackle the game. The team collaborative and unanimously decided that it would be best to start off by reading on each character personality sketches, write down a few points, analyzing their theories and grasp a coherent understanding of the problems amongst the employees and their relationships with one another. After thorough and in-depth understanding of each employee within the organization, we started the game by choosing tactics that would be most appropriately suited based on the change model tools. We started off by identifying the problem as we found that both John Simons and Jennifer Smith were able to depict the core issues of the corporation; lack of communication and lack of common language. The positive feedback of th company resulted to the choice of Jennifer Smith as being the change agent for the company. A the beginning of the game, the team was able to successfully implement the correct tactics based on the change model; we implemented tactics that were able to understand, enlist, and envisage problems at the management level. However, as the game progressed, the team slowly began losing points, money, and weeks by implementing inappropriate tactics that either left employees feeling neutral or furious at our decisions. Overall, we quickly lost the simulation game at our first attempt of the game as the team did not understand how to make use of suitable tactics that would be properly implemented across the company. For example, we attempted to implement the tactic of the CEO giving an upbeat speech quickly after we had the core change teams make presentations. This left the company in a horrible and negative state, which wasted both time and money as consultants; causing a big loss in the game and creating a negative attitude amongst the employees. As a team, we quickly learned that each tactic was valuable in terms of knowing when to implement which strategies for the firm. However, it is crucial to understand the timing of the implementation strategy. There are certain tactics that should be strictly identified in the beginning of the change model and other tactics that employees are simply not prepared for until later on in the game after pre-required strategies have been chosen. For example, we learned that the notion of structuring the company into teams cannot be done without meetings, trainings, and understanding of the core problems. Through this process, our team was then able to strategize the order of the tactics and tackle the problem for a second time.


 * --let me know what y'all thinx -steph**

On our second attempt at the simulation, we were more aware of what decisions and tactics to implement. We were also aware that certain tactics could only be implemented at specific times to achieve favourable results. Since we kept track of the feedback that we received in our first play-through, implementing tactics for our second try was much more efficient. We were familiar with which tactics were unfavourable and either avoided implementing then or implemented them at the appropriate time we thought possible. In our first play-through, we focused more on the tasks that we were delegated. This resulted in inefficient decision-making and mixed opinions. Furthermore, we were determined to win on our first attempt. We realized that the whole group had to work together to figure out which tactics would be suitable to implement and at what time.
 * Ending Results**

We kept track of our progress during our first play-through and this made it easier for us to make decisions the second time around. We realized from our first play-through that we missed or skipped integral tactics that should have been implemented during certain stages of the ExperienceChange Model. Therefore, we made a note of which tactics we missed and made sure we implemented them on our second attempt. Furthermore, we didn’t have to go through the tedious process of interviewing stakeholders during our second play-through which also made our progress more productive. From our first play-through we recognized which tactics resulted in negative results for the corporation and which ones resulted in positive results. We also realized that we could not please every stakeholder with the tactics that we implemented. Of course, there were some decisions that pleased all stakeholders and some that resulted with terrible outcomes and we also made a note of that.

Thus, on our second play-through we were able to successfully finish the simulation with favourable results. We were able to do this by analyzing our decision-making in our first attempt and working together as a team. We repeated whatever tactics gave us positive results and avoided implementing those that resulted in terrible outcomes. - This is my part, if you guys are meeting up today I won't be able to show up so if you can add the final copy here, I could add my edits to it.Thanks guys. - Melissa -Oh no... it looks like what I wrote in mine. Bah... -Mark Q. - Mine comes before yours..lulz - Melissa

We completed the simulation on our second play-through. The following will compare the results of both play-throughs by looking at the mistakes made at first and how we corrected ourselves after. Our first play-through ended with forty-three percent change. While there were instances when we made the right decisions, there were a lot of zero percent changes and also some declines in our progress. As we progressed through the simulation on our second play-through, our change percentages varied when it increased. The average percentage change was one or two percent with occasional four or five percentage increases as well. These steady increases paused briefly during the thirteenth week, but continued steadily until the goal of sixty-percent change was attained. We finished with twenty-five percent of the budget and twenty-three percent of the time left over. When focusing on improving our score for the simulation, we first analyzed the tactics that did not result in change. By analyzing this, we figured the timing of using the tactic was slightly off. We would either move it to another part of the project, or not use the tactics. The tactics used the second time had either a one or two percent difference. It was a positive change, and only happened because we implemented them at favorable times. The declines in change of the first play-through happened with the “CEO Gives Upbeat Speech” and “Quality Improvement Seminar” tactics. Not all of the shareholders were interviewed at first so we failed to understand how the CEO of the company had many resistors to his leadership. Also, we realized how the quality improvement seminar was not the best tactic to use during the middle of the entire project only because it creates confusion. This tactic would ideally be used (if at all) near the beginning of the project as opposed to the middle when people should already understand the situation of change. With these tactics, we decided to avoid using them for our second play-through.
 * Outcome**

One major thing we learned from this simulation, was we could not please everybody. Regardless of what we were doing, there was always a negative response from some of the shareholders. When we noticed the feedback (on the first play-through), we tried to please everybody by using tactics that were not ideal at the time. On our second play-through, we noticed the resistors, but still moved forward by catering to those that accepted change since it was the goal.

Hope it's okay. Let me know what to change if anything. -Mark Q. Looks great, I like it. -Sotha