Comments from Judge Rob Foshay:

The team did a great job identifying the problems, and matching solutions with them. The attention to change management was particularly strong in their response.

Things to consider:

1. The team identified reduction of revision cycles as a key productivity improvement point (Tom Gilbert's PIP). It should be possible to analyze types of revisions & their causes, and use that analysis to target the specific job tasks or teams which will have the greatest potential payback from the intervention. This will provide an additional way to stage development & introduction of the interventions.

2. The work flow cries out for cross-functional teams. I think that's what the various change were getting at, but the discussion of the teamwork issue might have been organized to make that point clearer.

3. Eventually, the ID/OD/HPT jargon of the internal notes will have to be converted to media production jargon, to make it all comprehensible outside the training department. Some of the jargon used may even be threatening to the others in the training department and could provoke a negative reaction.

4. The retrieval system for the EPSS will be even more critical than usual in this project. The structure of much of the knowledge base is visual, not verbal. Verbal language for the visual arts tends to be inadequate, idiosyncratic, and context-specific. A possible solution would be to tie the retrieval system specifically to the style guide for the Rocket Boy project. This would also encourage development of more complete and detailed performance specifications, which the team identified as a need.

5. A skill profiling system, upon which is based job descriptions, team assignments, and professional development, would be another useful alternative intervention.

While this team perhaps presented a very detailed and comprehensive plan, I confess to being extremely turned off by what I felt was a somewhat sarcastic or, at least, superior attitude. Perhaps, it was just the informality of the response (language) but if I was the client I would see this presentation as coming from someone who was an outsider and wanted to remain as one. As a designer, I want to become part of the organization to inspire confidence and demonstrate my commitment to the client's well-being. This response felt cold and distant.

Overall great job! I have to agree with the Provocateur's "specific questions" comment as to the initial communication style. How we approach our client is critical to the success or failure of any intervention. Admittedly I was turned off right from the start and it was hard for me to get initially beyond that. Once I got beyond the up-front judgement and sarcasm, the action plan was very well thought out and sensitive to individual and organizational needs.

The response reflected a very accurate picture of the understanding of the change management process and the need for ongoing support and assessment.

Some of the issues were addressed from a macro perspective only. One example would be the team building intervention. Specifics on the "how" of the team building interventions would be helpful in gaining DAI's buy-in.

Well done.

Congratulations on a well-designed project. I believe you've done a nice job at identifying the sources of the problems and structuring appropriate recommendations to help in their solution.

As the provocateurs implied, your initial language were a bit strong for a "new employee." However, it did have the effect of making your answers memorable. Regardless, I was a bit surprised to see that the first thing you said you'd do is "go back and fine-tune the needs assessment." This statement implies that you hadn't, (we're role playing here) done a very good job at either listening to your audience or planning out the needs assessment steps correctly the first time. This statement may have been better at the conclusion of the response if you discussed what you would do next.

Focusing on not only a comprehensive EPSS (in which you stated all the employees would help create), but also the development of better cooperation at the organization was a strength of your solution. It was good to see the variety of ways you would foster this communication; from brown-bag lunches to strategies to instill motivation. Your citations were helpful to document that your knowledge was up-to-date with much of the research in the field.

Another strong area was your creation of a month-by-month process throughout the nine months. It was also good to see that you included a process for ongoing evaluation. Overall, it was a solid proposal.

Jason's (this team's) plan is designed to jar DAI with its explosive plan. If he were situated in a unit located higher on the organizational chart and was in a higher level position himself, it could have potential. Given his current position, it may be difficult to implement. A more diplomatic approach from as new employee is needed. See Wunsch (1992) for strategies for smaller, less powerful units (and employees) to use to have others lobby for their positions.

It is noteworthy that he recognizes the need to plan for change, but, again, given his original charge and position, it may not be accepted in the current format by upper management.

The plan, while certainly dynamic and frank, does go beyond his charge to provide *performance support* for the animators. His emphasis on implementing EPSS and a mutual mentoring program do offer performance solutions that work toward removing obstacles and offer training designed to meet specific, job-related needs (Mager, 1992).

Jason, correctly notes that top level support must be given for quality management to occur. Managers may need to be exposed to principles of TQM.

By briefly summarizing Rossett's and Keller's models for motivation, Jason effectively presented these important concepts to his supervisors, who do not appear to have been exposed to principles of instructional design.. He does not acknowledge the "inbred" background of the 3 trainers who all come form the same company, but instead notes they are "very competent" in terms of recognizing that current training approaches are not effective. Using these more subtle tactics should serve him well in his work at DAI if he chooses to build upon this approach.

His call for the training team to become an effective liaison reflects one of Mintzbergs descriptors of a managers key interpersonal roles. In this way, he is urging the T&D Unit to exercise a very appropriate managerial role.

Jason's thoroughness in examining needs--exemplified by his call for additional data--reflects the strong contribution he can potentially make at DAI.

Specific Comments on the Rating Scale:
1, 2, 6, and 8--For the short term, very definitely; for the long term, goes far beyond initial charge
10--excellent, appropriate incorporation of relevant professional knowledge
13--greater diplomacy needed
14--risks are noted, particularly in relation to implementing change

Interesting proposal. I particularly liked your specific question from the provocateurs. I have similar concerns.

I would start by giving you a list of statements which come from your own proposal:

- "Clearly they don’t understand that 'technology for its own sake...'"
- "Management needs to adopt an approach to the animation business..."
- "DAI’s organizational structure gives new meaning to the phrase 'cartoon factory.'"
- "Output is endlessly recycled by an assembly line of stressed-out dispirited employees..."
- "...there are no standardized procedures, timeline, or consistent performance expectations to guide production."
- "The animators would have to be blind to overlook the evidence of their second-class status."
- Referring to animators on the same level as "twenty-something computer geeks."
-"...the only clear incentive to perform is that most compelling of human emotions, fear!"
- "DAI really shot itself in the foot..."
- "They are under constant pressure to master every new software program or upgrade that comes along, yet have no time to learn."
- "If this ‘experienced’ training team had taken the time to listen to DAI employees..."
- "The bad news is that DAI’s problems are truly systemic."
- "Change management, requires few resources beyond sensitivity and common sense."

Your response seems to personify a good news / bad news kind of person. So here’s the good news...

• You’ve identified some very effective solutions with an exception:

  - I wouldn’t necessarily agree that in a specialized and complex field such as 3D animation "software decisions based on usability," at least in its entirety, is a good decision. As with any complex tool, the balance between its inherent usability and the user’s participation in training is a delicate one. I think this may be a discipline where you would likely find that usability and overall capability may have an inverse relationship.

• You have radically changed your tone from your initial ID notebook statements. As Jason, the fantasy ID expert, it’s certainly legitimate to not include all of your notes in an interoffice communication. As a team participating in this case event, did you expect that as judges that we wouldn’t read those notes? I didn’t think of anything "resembling reconstructive surgery," I considered it a somewhat harsh treatment to people who have essentially welcomed you in because you could provide an "expert’s perspective." Maybe the "truth hurts," and I do commend you for modifying your tone, but I would highly recommend you reflect on a few of the comments above to see if they could have been couched in a more effective way.

• You have provided some very fine, well articulated and well supported recommendations to the company. That in and of itself is not bad news, but I suspect that your proposal would still fall largely on deaf ears due to the treatment you have offered. I find it remarkably ironic that, in two separate instances, you refer to change and transition as requiring "sensitivity," yet I don’t catch the slightest glimpse of that in your overall treatment. How can you propose sensitivity as essential to the success of your solution, but say things like "If this ‘experienced’ training team had taken the time to listen to DAI employees..."

• I hope you completely understand that although "some of the ideas mentioned in [your] notebook may seem drastic...," that wasn’t the real problem. The most effective solutions in the world can realistically never be implemented if the proposal creates more hostility than harmony. If change management truly only requires sensitivity and common sense, then who among us is going to admit we aren’t experts in that field? If that’s all it took, why doesn’t every single business in the world prosper and adapt to the ever-changing requirements of business by employing this simple concept? The common denominator in any successful organization is the people, and if you offend them, belittle their expertise or their value, you’ve likely got a more uphill battle than you’ve ever imagined. Particularly when attempting to implement something that relies on organizational change as training often does.

• Don’t let the intrinsic value of your solution be diluted by your tone. It’s far too insightful and well supported to be rejected out of hand for some need to be "omniscient." As the saying goes, "Omniscience must be a terrible burden..."