Comments from Judge Rob Foshay:

The team did a great job of identifying the needs. I agree with the proposed interventions, with two major exceptions:

1. The "standard search engine" proposed for the EPSS will not work. Most of the knowledge structure is visual, not verbal. Therefore, a standard search engine, which is exclusively verbal, will not work. Developing a way to visually index the knowledge will be a significant challenge. Verbal descriptors tend to be idiosyncratic and project/team specific. One possibility is to merge the indexing system with the Rocket Boy style guide's terminology.

2. The proposal of weekly meetings with accounting lacks a goal for the meetings, and weekly may be the wrong time interval. Teams do need feedback on their performance improvement progress (see below), but as proposed this probably won't accomplish that purpose.

No performance improvement project (or training project, for that matter) can work without adequate feedback. This is critical for quality management and motivation. The team did not propose any feedback systems, such as monitoring the PIPs.

A refinement to the team' suggestion to manage software upgrades would be to time software upgrades to minimize disruption, and maximize productivity of projects.

I was impressed with this team's decision to go with a more detailed needs assessment to find out more specifically the nature of the problem I also liked the proactive approach of having preproduction teams. Finally, developing alternatives shows good creative problem solving. However, there was no methods explained for on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the solution or to manage risks.

Good job.
Nice indication that DAI needed to go beyond the initial needs assessment.

Recommendations:

Interventions were very general thereby making it difficult to really get a feel for the "how" of what you proposed. I had to really "search" for what it was you were trying to say. As judge, that was not a problem, but could be a potential problem when writing a report for corporate buy in to your proposal.

Knowledge of theory and field "jargon" or common usage of terms was not evident in the proposed plan.

Some specific examples:

Teams can be very effective tools if put together well and managed the right way. The solution of a team approach is a good one, however, the process of teaming needs to be defined to see if the process could work in any given environment. It's one thing to have a team and another to design the team in such a way that it works well.

Under the topic of training solution you mention the solution of pairing techies and artists, but later state that the target is the techies (what target? why?). This is not clear. Under needs analysis it is stated that the web tutorials are inadequate yet well done...again, I was not sure what you were trying to say.

The issues addressed were valid issues, a little more micro detail, organization and clarity and this is an excellent proposal. Again, good job.

Congratulations on a plan well designed. The six points you identified in the needs assessment were well thought out, and include perspectives from each of the interviews.

The solutions that you proposed, both instructional and non-instructional, should be able to meet most of those needs. It was interesting to note that the first "training" recommendation proposed was to reform teams of artists and techies. Although I agree that this re-organization will greatly help the company, I was surprised to see that it was listed under training, yet there was no discussion of any specific instruction or training that would occur. There was an implication that they would train each other, but that's a bit optimistic. An alternative would be to conduct training on building web pages for their tips and hints which you say they will put online (yet most currently lack the ability to do this), and to facilitate training by the techies in using the computer, and by the artists in learning how to understand lighting.

The components you include in the EPSS look good. It's nice to see a variety of tools, and a consistent method to search the database. Working on this during down time will be a good use of everyone's time.

The alternative solutions you proposed fill out the plan nicely. Bringing together the business and artistic points of view should help employees understand each other better, and work more consistently towards the improvement of the company.

Towards the end of your initial response, you briefly mention improved morale. Because this was the very first of the needs you identified, I was surprised to see such little emphasis placed on this component, and the feeling that it would be improved as a byproduct of the other changes. That may be correct, but a more defined recommendation for this need could have strengthened your product.

Overall, you presented very well thought out answers to the problem. Nicely done.

Jason (this team) began with an attention getting introduction that at once alerted his employer to the "shock" value it would have, while being careful to acknowledge the talent of the employees.

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 that appear to negatively impact the organizational mission. His emphasis on implementing EPSS (along with employees input) would appear to justify his employers rationale for hiring him, that is, his expertise with EPSS, and his findings from his needs assessment.

His non-training/organizational response offers some performance solutions designed to remove obstacles, that is, well-defined job descriptions, standardized animation software and hardware, and *job aids*. Good! Training alone is not always the answer (Mager, 1992).

While creating teams may be viewed by some as a supportive approach, given DAI's hierarchical top-down structure, it represents a radical change that will take time, "marketing" the concept to employees, and training in group dynamics before it has any potential to positively impact productivity and profitability. If implemented in DAI's typical top-down management approach, acceptance is less apt to occur and quality management is definitely not addressed (Richie, 1994).

Bringing the Finance Department people into the team in terms of physical visits to the Pipeline certainly supports Tom Peters management by walking around, but, no specifics are offered for politically appropriate approaches that this third level Training and Development Unit might implement to bring about such a change.

Greater emphasis on having the employees design their own solutions, that are initially discussed and developed within the electronic support system Jason implements, will have the potential of leading to highly motivated, productive work teams who are committed to DAI's mission.

Specific Comments on the Rating Scale:
1 and 3--Issues and perspectives not identified specifically in relation to supervisors and administrators in T&D Unit --No recognition was made of the "in-bred" backgrounds of 3 of the current trainers. Granted, this aspect is a very delicate one to address, but needs to be addressed.
6--Good to see alternatives included. Refer to political reality issue discussed above in relation to second alternative solution.
13--Inclusion of job aids is excellent! Training per se is not always the answer.
14--Risks not included.
15--Quality management requires ongoing participation by all stakeholders in continually developing solutions for excellence.

Thorough treatment of the problem, with some very insightful and appropriate alternative solutions to the major problems.

Here are a few observations:

• I’m not sure I agree that poor employee morale and job security and inefficient installation of technology are major problems. Updates to software should not directly relate to pressure to produce their work, because if someone is able to complete their job with existing resources, they should not be impeded by new features. Updates typically provide bug fixes and enhanced features, but I’m not sure I’ve ever waited on a product upgrade because I could not do the job without its predecessor.

• Several statements were made in your final solution which generated some questions in my mind. Among them were:
  
  • "The teaming of the participants will enable a more cohesive production and the creation of a web-based page."
  • "This [solution] will reduce the cost of outsourcing and also customize the software to the needs of the user."
  • "An EPSS system must be designed that reduces the complexity of tasks..."
  • "An additional needs assessment of specific skills and problems needing to be addressed by the EPSS needs to be conducted."
  • "DAI’s employees shall have defined job descriptions in order to facilitate interactivity between departments."
  • "DAI will purchase standardized animation software and hardware for all departments, enabling company wide problem solving and sharing, eliminating technological inconsistency within each finished product."
  I’m not trying to nit-pick, but as assertions in a proposal, I would like to know the "hows" and "whys" of some of these statements. For instance, how are we able to "customize" the software to the needs of the user and what potential benefits would it create? Also, is purchasing standardized software and hardware the answer for a company with the diverse production elements that DAI has a good solution? I’m reminded of the "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail..." adage. I think it is clear that the success of this business is related to its specialty, and doesn’t lend itself to a single software and hardware solution. These are just some things to think about in terms of providing solid support for the recommendation you make. In the long run, they’ll give your overall effort more credence.