Judge Sandy Balli:
I liked the suggestion that the needs analysis did not address the gap between skills
needed and skills already possessed by the students. I also liked your observation that
there was no evidence of dissemination activities to generate interest (question 1). I
wondered about your opening assertion that the committee had taken too long to deliver
the workshop. What was your rationale? Based on a faulty design and incomplete needs
assessment (as indicated in the response) it would appear that the committee rushed in
too quickly. For question 2, the response indicated that Terry was only partially able to
help the committee but was unable to face the errors she was making. Specifically,
what errors do you believe she made? The response also argued that "none of the
students can see the relevance of the workshops." The term "none" is likely an
overstatement especially since student perspective could not be adequately determined
in light of no completed evaluation.
The action plan needs to address what to do about the workshop scheduled for the day
following case closure (March 15). 1 like the idea that you suggested for having
students on the design committee. Your team made that unique suggestion and I believe
it is a good one. You mention getting an outside expert with credible knowledge to
implement the action plan. Does that mean getting rid of Terry and starting over? If so,
what would be the implications of that action? You indicate that Dr. Cranston's and
Mavis Barrett's support would ensure Jane's motivation and commitment to the project.
Are you sure that action alone would bring Jane onboard?
Judge Peg Ertmer:
Overall, this team did a great job addressing the major issues, representing relevant
perspectives, and designing an effective, reasonable action plan. Their
anticipated consequences are a little too "sure"--they need to leave open more
possibilities...
This team had one of the strongest responses to the common question (it seemed to
really be on-target), as well as a strong response to the specific question. They didn't
seem to skirt the issue, but were clear and to-the-point. This response was easy to
read and follow--overall a great job!
Judge David Graf:
This team did an excellent job identifying and describing the key issues in the case.
The weakest portion of this team's response was the listing of perspectives. While the
team addressed each of the perspectives requested, more time might have been spent
explaining how each perspective contributed to the failure of the workshop. SOME of
this came out during the presentation of the action plan.
The team's response to the common question and the specific question were well done
and well documented.
Interestingly, between the time this team presented their response and the time they
reacted to the common question, Terry underwent a gender change.
Judge Jim Klein:
This team did a good job identifying the key issues in the case.
However, I disagree with much of their action plan and its consequences.
This plan seems to indicate that the project should be started at the
beginning again (a new committee, a new needs analysis, a new design). This
plan would cost additional resources that most organizations (especially
schools) don't have available. Team E did an excellent job responding to
the common question on context analysis!
Judge Brent Wilson:
I liked the response to the common question, citing Tessmer & Richey's three views of
context. I'm going to have to look up that reference!
I'm always wary of expanded needs analyses, adding stakeholders and people of
different sorts. The success of a bona fide needs analysis is predicated upon having
real support from the school and from the administration. You don't want to expand the
scope and start over on a project with the little support demonstrated by the case. Put
first things first and secure the support for doing it right--then go do it as you say.
You say:
-----Dr. Cranston's endorsement of the project will ensure that Mavis Barrett treats
the project as a high priority. With both of them as strong supporters, Jane Pruitt will
become motivated to meet their expectations and will become a committed team
members. Terry Kirkland will be able to effectively bring ISD into the project.-----
You have pinpointed a critical problem area--lack of support from Jane, Mavis, and Dr.
Cranston--but you need to give me more detail about how to effect this transformation.
It's not magic! This is my principal criticism of your response--I was looking for more
along these lines.
Is Terry is male or female? I assumed she was female. Intentionally ambiguous I
suppose.
Be careful with categorical statements like, "None of the students can see the
relevance of the workshops." That's going beyond the data given to us.
I felt at times like you were asking too much of models, processes, and technical
expertise. While these are helpful, the case is very much about personalities, politics,
and practical knowledge. Both go hand in hand to solve problems.
