Comments from Judge Rob Foshay:

The team did a great job of identifying the need for the EPSS, and was one of the few to identify need to reduce number of revision cycles as the key performance indicator.

Some additional suggestions:

1. An EPSS is a huge undertaking. The team stopped just short of suggesting that the EPSS could first be developed to support the work of one department. Another alternative would be to analyze the most frequent causes of excessive revisions, and target them in descending order of priority (this is using Tom Gilbert' concept of a PIP).

2. A key issue in usability of an EPSS is design of the retrieval system to correspond to the knowledge structure of the users. Since most of the concepts are visual, not verbal, this will be a challenge. Visual concept vocabulary tends to be very context-specific. An option here would be to tie the retrieval system directly to the style guide for Rocket Boy.

3. Another key issue in EPSS is how to drive use of the system, especially early in its life. The team suggested requiring use; that's unrealistic because it's a performance standard in competition with project-related performance standards. The team's other idea, building in an evaluation system, is more reasonable. Somehow, feedback needs to tell the users if they are reducing rework according to the targets.

4. The scenario cries out for a cross-functional team structure. The team stopped short of recommending one. It may not be reasonable to suggest it as a first intervention, but it could have been noted as a long-term option.

5. The team noted, but did not adequately deal with, the problem that software enhancements are not task-oriented. Logical interventions here might include a requirements definition system which is driven by the users, and an upgrade management plan which is synchronized with production schedules.

6. The team noted, but did not propose a solution for, the need to change management culture to support training (or EPSS use) during projects. Management will almost certainly see incorporation of training and EPSS development into the project as cost-increasing measures with an uncertain productivity improvement payback. Therefore they will view these interventions as high risk. What's needed is a way to reduce risk and convince management that these interventions will be worth the cost. Some kind of pilot, phased implementation, or prioritized development system would be a logical stategy here.

7. The team stopped just short of proposing a formal mentoring scheme to deal with the issues of divergent skill sets of the various subgroups.

8. There was no attention to a quality management system, other than one mention to a need for an evaluation system built into the EPSS.

9. There was no mention of the changes needed within the training department to make this all happen.

10. The overall style of the writing was appropriate for the competition, but in a real setting the use of ID jargon would probably be threatening to the rest of the training department and damaging to the relationship of the department with the rest of the company. I therefore have globally recommended to all teams that the language be changed to conform to that of the media production world, especially for communications going outside the training department. This simple action would go a long way to solving the perceived conflict between management and artists.

This team was quite specific in defining the various needs, although knowledge deficiencies did not seem to be addressed very comprehensively. I was looking for either a more detailed description of the knowledge problem or a plan to conduct a more specific needs assessment. I was impressed with their investigation job redesign but I thought it was overly unrealistic to expect a major paradigm shift within management, given the time issues. This team was very proactive albeit naive for a real world setting.

Good job!
Kudos on bringing ID issues into the existing training materials and *not* just accessibility issues. There was a good indication of knowledge of best use of technologies. I also feel it is important in an event such as this to recognize that outside help is a valuable intervention.

I felt the proposal was kept at a general level and would have benefited from some more specific detail such as "what technology/ies would allow immediate access to expertise."

You've done a nice job of addressing the majority of problems Jason faced in this case. Your needs analysis, and the incorporation of the different perspectives, was well done. I liked how you systematically went through the process of identifying the problems, structuring goals, and providing recommendations.

I did feel, however, that some of the recommendations would have made management seem a bit heavy handed. For instance, starting "every morning" with a sharing session, and stating that users are "required to check this board three or four times per day" might alienate some of the employees. These ideas seem to go against your statement of wanting to "create a culture where management and employees understand, accept, and work together." Building the community is important, but I wonder if maybe a mentor or partnering system might work better to help in the sharing of ideas, or a debriefing of ideas at weekly meetings or after a project.

Your plan to create the EPSS has some nice components. I was unsure, however, as to when or who would be involved in its creation. A bit more specifics would have strengthened your proposal. Was it only the programmers who would be doing this? Maybe the "talent" could do more than just contribute to the bulletin board, and contribute to job aids and hints during their down time between production.

Jason (this team) began with clearly delineated, substantiated needs that related to key aspects of DAI. He was specifically tasked with providing *performance support* for the animators.

During the needs assessment he decided to undertake, he identified issues beyond the scope of his immediate assignment, specifically management issues outside his department. Notably, he recognized the T&D Unit's need to work with upper management to conduct a company-wide employee training needs assessment. This acknowledgment of working with upper management reflects his political astuteness and accurate analysis of the current hierarchical organization at DAI. It offers a way for higher level managers to become involved in the T&D process, contributing to the development of a "nerve ring of a starfish" approach, that is, the rays of the starfish (corporate units) work together to offer a unified response (Maier, 1967).

Training is heavily emphasized as offering answers. Some mention is made of purchasing issues, which if encompassed greater input from end users, could lead to the removal of one of the production obstacles without resorting to training.

Specific Comments on the Rating Scale:
1--Good note of using technology
2 and 6--Developing ways to maximize "buy in" by employees not mentioned--Will they use EPSS?
7--Excellent development of numerous, clear goals
14--Discussion of change theory would strengthen
15--Good, but may not be entirely realistic, for example, "management *needs* to develop"--Yes, quality management relies on strong, ongoing support from the top, as well as a serious commitment to the contributions that all make in devising solutions for delivering quality, but how do you suggest that management move in this direction, particularly given the T&D Unit's third tier position on the organizational chart.

Excellent job! I thought this was a very fine proposal and congratulate you on its overall effectiveness!

I felt that your strong points were as follows:

• A very clear introductory paragraph to state the true nature of the "need."

• The statement about "the culture, how the workflow is designed, and employee’s interpersonal strengths interrelate to create communication systems that achieve results" is right on target.

• Your assertion that EPSS could "alleviate some of Ellen Peterson’s concerns about the budget, since it will not involve a major capital investment and will not take away from production time," is good motivation for your upper management, and may facilitate the necessary buy-in you need.

• An excellent assertion of your perception of EPSS "as a tool or group of tools to help solve a group of problems." Again, I think this statement can help with "buy in" as most people like tools which solve or help to solve their problems.

• In your preliminary recommendations, you state that needs can be "identified prior to production." Referencing Glen Michener’s comments about changing in midstream, it may be a misnomer to believe that all needs can be identified in advance. Also, your holding a drawing / sharing session each morning is somewhat inconsistent with their own assessment of their time. How would this work during 9-10 hour days when production is in full-swing? Clearly the animators are pressed for time, so this solution may not be the most viable one.

• You state that EPSS "would ensure that training is just-in-time and would therefore reduce the observed problems of lack of time for training." How is this so? I would suspect that EPSS could facilitate just-in-time training and information access, but I’m not sure it would ensure it.

• Integrating an effective EPSS system could in some way "negate" the need for interpersonal skills training. I’m not suggesting that having strong interpersonal skills or any training in that discipline is a bad idea. But people who lack interpersonal skills can still see the benefit of contributing to an EPSS, where they’ll encounter helpful information and be able to offer expertise, even if they’re not comfortable with interfacing directly with people. This may create buy-in even from the most introverted character.