Change 1
- 1. Neslihan Bagci Youssef Boutefouste Larissa Bouwe Yenzo Legrand Fanny Roguès Teacher : José Pietri
- 2. Introduction to the EIS simulation Role playing game Team & teammates Others areas-team dynamic Strategy announcement First decisions-feedbacks-Adjustments Results Information Decision making
- 3. EIS simulation as a group role playing game Objectives: Work as teammates Introduce an innovation in a company Set milestones Get smart in our choices in order to respect deadlines Learn management EIS Simulation Establish a strategy Convince most persons
- 4. Work team #4 Composed with: Fanny Rogues Neslihan Bagci Larissa Bouwe Youssef Boutefouste Yenzo Legrand
- 5. Lead the team Time Keeper Validate the actions No time control Role Impact Without her
- 6. Quicker actions Improve the adopters Know the tool simulation Lost time with tool Role Impact Without Her
- 7. Make the team go on Channel the team Give good ideas Team split Role Impact Without her
- 8. Give good analyzes on the actions Approve the common decision Analyze the ideas Go too fast Role Impact Without him
- 9. Increase the users and adopters Make a feedback Analyze the actions Take some bad decisions but one good Role Impact Without him
- 10. Team work Constructive team work. Initially good strategy, good plan of action. But sometimes, some decisions were taken without strategy because of failures. Leadership & followership : In general, everyone has given his point of view At the beginning of the work the point of view of some person were more taken in consideration than other. Ideas were discussed before their applications. The majority won. There was not really leader, not follower At the end, we have succeeded to convince two employees with a team work. The contribution of everyone was important.
- 11. Since process has been splited in 4 mains steps: Aware Interested Trying Adopter We’ve drafted this:
- 12. We set these milestones because we expected that everybody would, at least, progress in the same way. So, we didn’t take into account Return on Experience in our strategy. Nevertheless operational return have been predominant in our choices. As consequences we stand to our first strategy
- 13. At first, we decided to make an analysis of the background of each person concerned in order to cumulate levers This first approach allowed us to learn more about basic people relationship; which manager has influence on whom But didn’t influence people Second step: we initiate communication period to make them aware of the innovation Since we didn’t meet everyone some« decisions » were blocked by key persons (ex: Tina feint doesn’t allow us to meet top manager George Glenn) So back to step 1
- 14. Email and internal communication worked well and was appreciate Nota: All people don’t progress in the same way => As soon as everyone was awared we tried to make them interested Regarding our milestones we decided to go forward and offer them new point of view Related to the background of each ones we planned face to face we were sure to succeed Additionnaly we use a lot of communication process (meetings, memorandum) and questionnaire to involve them
- 15. People concerned didn’t progress in the same amplitude. We believed that everybody should get involved in the same rate. So we focused on the overall trend. With hindsight, it was maybe not the best solution. But we kept going on that way. From this point, top manager were all interested at least It was for us the key step to introduce group involvement (workshop, external speaker): that could be used only once => Success
- 16. Since group activities worked and the CEO were still unavailable we tried the « Covert lobbying » Subjected to time (game and clock) pressure we rushed into bad decisions that crushed our efforts
- 17. In order to go back to the original trend, and despite the hurry, we used the same decisions that succeed until now with a focus on our guest who were the more involved and have the best response feeling. A quick look at the control panel show us the strategy we used until now: So, all stakeholders are at least interested, except 2 people
- 18. 1)Background analysis 2)Internal communication 3)Early irrelevant decisions (face to face) 4)Back to internal communication and staff discussion 5) Then a lot of FTF and questionnaire were more relevant to introduce staff discussion and directors meeting 6)Covert lobbying! 7)Focus on key person 6 2 3 4 5 1 7
- 20. Context We decided to meet users of our future system in order to create the best working environment and obtain their cooperation.
- 21. Step Action Objective Error Conse-quences Crises Managing 1 Meet user Organize coffee break Network Identify the non-official key person who could make the difference in a dynamic of group Forget that the network action was reserved to top manager Positives 2 Get overview on task force Organize Task Force Analyze the main task force with top manager’s help Not to introduce ourselves before Refuses each meeting Send email, and organize face to face meeting to create a new trust-link 3 Obtain more precision Personal Profile Analyze the personality, the history and the environment of some people To make a short list quickly instead of to discover each profile Meeting refused Discover each profil to be accepted in the face to face meeting 4 To find a operational sponsor Seek Advice To have an operational sponsor to convince more easily To underestimate the power of an operational project manager The operation project manager and her manager have refused to meet us Communicate in the internal magazine, send email to top manager, organize face to face in order to explain that we are not here to take the place of someone but to help everybody to work in the best conditions
- 22. Context :Acting slowly until the chief asked about how many decisions were taken. Reaction : fast decisions Problem : the speed rate wasn’t adequate Consequence : decisions not efficient Good decisions : Fix milestones (objectives of results) Taken by the group Evaluate the environement Watch the feedback and react Compare with other ideas
- 23. Time (min) 45 75 90 105 120 Number of decisions 4 11 24 43 58
- 25. Thank you for your attention