Craig Gregersen Case 1

Craig Gregersen Case

EDCI 67200-003
Alicia Pearlman
Professor Watson
October 27, 2013

Craig Gregersen Case 2
Key Stakeholders and their Primary Concerns
The Craig Gregersen case is about creating a training course on product liability
for Electron Corporation. The project manager for this course was Louise Masoff and
she told Craig that the course was intended to provide a proactive approach to product
safety one that would prevent lawsuits from happening (Peggy E. Artmer, 2014, p.
205). The rest of the content of the course was for Craig to determine.
This case has a diverse group of stakeholders with very different and opposing
needs. The first group is the legal department of Electron that needs to be consulted
with on everything (Peggy E. Artmer, 2014, p. 205). The legal department is also
subject matter experts on product liability. A second group of stakeholders is the
engineering department. Engineering issues were not limited to design issues (Peggy
E. Artmer, 2014). The legal department and the engineering department are at odds
with one another. Other stakeholders in this case are the process engineers who deal
with the manufacturing process, and the field engineers who deal with the construction
and maintenance of large systems. The list of stakeholders is not complete; product
engineers, line engineers, management, marketing, sales, installation, servicing, and
maintenance. Each group has their own agenda along with their own requirements. All
of these stakeholders, except for the legal department are the audience for the training.
Key Design Challenges
The first design challenge is the large amount of material to be covered in just
one day. The company wants this course to be a one day course, but the amount of
material to be covered will not warrant a one day course. This is a design challenge for
implementation.
Craig Gregersen Case 3
Another design challenge is that the legal department wants Craig to use an old
course that was developed a few years ago and to just modify it. However, this course
is ineffective and out of date. This is also a design challenge to implement,
A third design issue is that Craig does not have time to conduct a needs
assessment which will help him with developing the course. The company has given
him 5 weeks to interview employees and design the course. This is really not enough
time given the size of the company and all of the legal ramifications of product liability.
The company has plants in 16 countries besides doing business in almost every other
company. Researching all of this information is very time consuming.
One project management issue is that there is no one person in charge to make
decisions about what content to be covered and the timeframe for the course. There is
no clear direction to take on designing the course. There are other case specific issues
including the politics involved in the company between each of the stakeholders. The
stakeholders do not want to talk to Craig and are leery of the other stakeholders as well.
This makes it hard for him to get the information that he needs to design this course.
Priority of Design Challenges
The first priority for this case would be for Craig to determine what material
needs to be covered along with the timeframe to cover it. Craig needs to talk to the
person in charge so that individual can make these decisions. This order was chosen
because in order for Craig to move forward he needs to know what should be covered
and the time frame to cover it in so he can design the course.
Previous Experience
Craig Gregersen Case 4
The assigned readings and previous class experiences helped me to understand
this case. The Michael Bishop case gave me experience in understanding how to work
on case evaluations. This weeks readings also contributed to my knowledge, especially
the article about the Code of Ethics. Craigs ethics as a consultant are being put to the
test in this case. Craig has to deal with the politics of Electrons stakeholders. He is
struggling with his ethics, especially regarding the Add Value Principal. This principle
relates to serving your clients with integrity. The company wants the old course to be
redesigned to fit a one day timeframe. However, Craig feels that the needs of the
company would better be served with a newer course that will cover all of the required
information. The article by Frisque also discussed the ethical challenges in the
workplace. These articles provided me with some background information on ethics.
Craig has some ethical dilemmas regarding the person in charge and whether to go
over her head or not. He also has ethical concerns about the time frame of the training.
As Dr. Nancy Touna stated, Ethics are ethics and doing the right thing is always right in
any discipline (Deloise A.Frisque, 2004). Craig Gregersen has a very big ethical
dilemma to figure out because he wants to do the right thing for his client and himself.
Three reasonable solutions/recommendations
The ISPIs Code of Ethics and Standards Add Value Principle states, Conduct
yourself, and manage your projects and their results, in ways that add value for your
clients, their customers, and the global environment (International Society for
Performance Improvement, 2002). Craigs job is to deliver a training course that will add
value to the organization and he needs to know how to proceed. He needs to discuss
the training with somebody at Electron who has authority to make decisions as he
Craig Gregersen Case 5
realized that Louise Masoff was not the right person. Craig needs to go over her head to
talk to the person who can make decisions about this course. This solution addresses
the design issues of determining what needs to be covered and the timeframe for the
course. The pro in going with this solution is that Craig will get the information that he
needs for the course. A con with this solution is that he went over Louises head to get
the information he needed. He did not consult with the other stakeholders and that may
result in not including the information that they needed to be covered.
A second possible solution to this problem would be to call a meeting with all of
the stakeholders. The ISPIs Code of Ethics and Standards Collaboration Principle
states meet the interests of all parties involved in an intervention, project, or process,
so there is a win-win outcome (International Society for Performance Improvement,
2002). By meeting with all of the stakeholders, Craig is trying to meet the needs of
everybody involved. This solution would also address the design issue of what should
be covered in the training. The pro of calling all of the stakeholders together in one
meeting is that Craig will get all of the information that he needs from all of the varied
groups. The con of this solution is that it puts more than one person in charge of the
course as all the stakeholders would be involved. There also may be internal politics
involved by having all the stakeholders in one meeting and nothing may be
accomplished. Furthermore, there may be too much material to be covered in one-day if
he tries to meet all of the stakeholders requirements.
A third solution would be to hold a joint meeting with the stakeholders with the
person in charge of the company moderating the meeting. This solution has the pro of
all the stakeholders being present along with the top person so that the politics of the
Craig Gregersen Case 6
company would be kept in check and the information obtained. The con is that the top
person may act as a mediator and just break up any disagreements and nothing may be
accomplished.
Final Recommendation
My final recommendation would be for Mr. Gregersen to hold a joint meeting with
the stakeholders and the top person at Electron. He needs all of these people to be
involved. He needs the information from the stakeholders in order to have the
information to design this course. If the top person in charge of the company is there
running the meeting, then the stakeholders will present the information needed for the
training. Also, the top person can make a decision about the timeframe of the training
and ultimately about what will be covered. If the top person in the company makes the
decision about the training, the stakeholders may not be happy. But, they will have no
choice but to abide by the decision. This method will address the pros of deciding what
should be covered in the course as well as the time frame for the course. This solution
addresses the con of getting the information from other stakeholders.
Craig needs to go with the solution that he feels is best for the company and also
for himself regarding his ethics. Ethically Craig does not feel right about reusing the
current course and he also has issues with designing a course that will not cover all of
the material in the allotted time.




Craig Gregersen Case 7
References:

Deloise A.Frisque, H. L. (2004). Preparing Professionals to Face Ethical Challenges in
Todays Workplace: Review of Literature, Implications for PI, and a Proposed
Research Agenda. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28-45.
Dundis, S (2014). Craig Gergersen: Balancing a range of stakeholder interests when
designing instruction. In P.A. Ertmer, J. A. Quinn, K. A. Glazewski (Eds.), The ID
CaseBook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (pp. 29-38). Boston: Pearson.
International Society for Performance Improvement. (2002). Retrieved October 24,
2013, from Code of Ethics: http://www.ispi.org/content.aspx