Since most of the knowledge structure for the EPSS is visual, not
verbal, developing a design for the search engine is a major risk.
Comments from Judge Les Moller:
On a positive note, I was impressed by this team's academic/research
justification and explanation. Furthermore, they did seem to grasp the
nature of the problem and proposed a solid solution. However, I was
concerned about two factors which negatively impact the quality of the
solution. First was the length of time until the solutions could be
implemented. They appear to be reactive, after the problem, rather than
setting up a process to avoid it in the first place. Second and more
importantly was the growth of the training department and placing itself
permanently in the production process rather than giving the tools to the
production staff and creating a system where they could be self sufficient.
A successful training or HPT effort should result in the trainers becoming
obsolete.
Comments from Judge Karen Peters:
Excellent job. The response was extremely well organized and very well
communicated. Interventions included long term and short term addressing
both micro and macro needs.
I am a firm believer in the power of de-briefing sessions. I also enjoyed
your positive attitude of success :).
One suggested enhancement would be to map out process improvement or work
flow planning a bit more.
Comments from Judge Donn Ritchie:
Congratulations. You've done a beautiful job on this project.
I appreciated the way you systematically laid out and presented your solution to the problem.
Your needs assessment nicely identified four problem areas, and then provided the goals and
strategies to overcome the barriers. One suggestion here would have been to define and more
fully describe the "conceptual framework" you speak of to overcome the time restraint for
improvements more fully. I wasn't sure if you meant this framework to be the entire process you
have described to overcome the obstacles, or something else.
One of the unique components of your solution was the extrapolation of the time period to
describe the steps you would examine beyond the nine months. It was nice to see how you
would go back to the initial people you interviewed and who else you would be interviewing.
I appreciated how your solution set was based on a variety of authors in the field of EPSS and
that you were planning to use incremental implemention, not only to attain quicker results, but to
refine the model as you progressed, and to minimize the confusion that might occur if multiple
changes were all implemented at the same time.
A bit more clarity on who would be involved with the mini-debriefing meetings would have
strengthened your specific response. Is it just the production staff? Finally, a bit more explanation
of how you could use the time between production periods would have also been helpful. But
other than these few modifications, I thought this was a very sound response to the problem.
Comments from Judge Annette Sherry:
Jason's (this team's) response effectively reflected the style of the case
study with its breezy narrative design. From there, it changed to a
formal report, that, although an abrupt style change, clearly delineated
observed and desired outcomes from his interviews with employees.
Addressing his specific task of providing *performance support* for the
animators, his analysis emphasizes training solutions along with some
recognition of the need to remove some obstacles (Mager, 1992). Including
feedback from listservs and news groups, debriefings, and open
communication between animators and assistant producers to potentially
minimize "do-overs" are specific ways Jason suggests supporting
productivity and profitability that are not based in training.
Given the rationale for hiring Jason, that is, his experience with EPSS,
the emphasis on implementing EPSS should be received favorably by his
superiors. Some consideration to introducing it to the employees would
strengthen the performance solution.
His desire for continuing assessment, while compatible with a quality
approach, may be more difficult to achieve given the third tier position
of his T&D Unit. Wunsch (1992) provides specific suggestions for ways to
obtain necessary political support for a work unit.
Specific Comments on the Rating Scale:
1 & 2--Good, but "all being able to communicate openly" is too broad.
4--End user input is excellent to include!
6--Providing alternative solutions acknowledges that other approaches may
be needed in an authentic, multifaceted work environment
10--Excellent references to the work of others.
Comments from Judge Scott Switzer:
Nice job, "golden boy!" Your solution does a good job of summarizing
the key point and you’ve made some fine observations which helped give
credence to your overall package.
Some observations:
- You made the statement that persons will "share knowledge with others
on their team." How do you reach people like Kenny Moyers, who stated
that he had some tricks "up his sleeve." Clearly Kenny was going to use
his knowledge to get ahead and to get his opportunity in the 3D
environment. How will you motivate Kenny into sharing his extensive
knowledge without promoting him or simply throwing money his way. Kenny
is a good example of someone who needs to see the benefits of his
participation in other ways, (i.e., he gets feedback from "old school"
animators who have the "real world" sense he doesn’t currently have.)
If there’s a case of needing the buy-in, Kenny is it.
- I would have liked to know a bit more detail on the design and
rapid-prototyping of a conceptual framework. I realize you’re only
doing a preliminary design, but that was one of those things that just
cried out for more detail.
- Your response to your questions was very well articulated and
insightful. I have some general concerns about the issue of time, but I
believe the solution is very sound.
Overall a very fine job. I wish your team the best of luck in your
future endeavors!
Read the Case Response for this Team
Read the Provocateur Questions and Responses
for this Team
