Eis simulation v2-team3-AFTI
- 1. TEAM 3 : CHEAKA Sawdatou CORONAS Aurélia DAIF Loubna BOUZIANE Amine DUCOURANT Christophe JOSE PIETRI 1
- 2. Plan Strategy Tactics Team dynamics Leadership-Followership Decision making Information Values Results What worked well for us What didn’t work so well Evolution Role Conclusions 2
- 3. Strategy We didn’t choose our strategy immediately. First, we took the ownership of the game in order to better understand the rules Decision making Evaluation and adaptation Interest Collecting information 3
- 4. Tactics Our first decisions were not efficient enough We started by informing people and collecting information It was important for us to define the kind of relationship between employees, and to define the role of Ann Finkelbaum Our strategy was good until an unexpected event happened (“loose Scotti”). Then we decided to focus on the top managers by organizing meetings, collecting their viewpoint. 4
- 5. Team dynamics(1) Workgroup : each decision was approved by the group after discussion. Sometimes we decided to take some risks to improve the evolution of the project 5
- 6. Team dynamics(2) During the game we faced 2 unexpected events. The first unexpected event happened because the managers weren’t involved. In order to get back managers attention, we decided to organize a meeting with the management staff (SCOTTI). The second unexpected event was that Ann Finkelbaum joined the team with a new solution, which was acclaimed by the hole group. 6
- 7. Leadership-Followership No leader has distinguished himself There is a mutual relationship established between each member of the team which is really beneficial in the effectiveness of the group. 7
- 8. Decision making As every member of the team is adding his opinion, the decision making was more efficient. After discussion between ourselves, we have done the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each decision. During the game we realized the importance of the time. This is why we were even more vigilant in making our decision towards the end of the game. 8
- 9. Information Most of information concern employees and members of CEO These information are important for the development of the strategy For example, information concerning Ann, allowed us to avoid the lobbying. 9
- 10. Values To follow Leadership Unique To adapt vision To listen Success Objectives 10
- 11. Results 9 adopters with Ann Finkelbaum 11
- 12. What worked well for us The first step was to contact all concerned members via e- mails and to set up some face to face meetings. The objective was to clarify the new process of the EIS project. We chose to go step by step and not to cut corners. Considering Anne’s strong personality we noticed that Lobbying would not be relevant for us because it would create real conflicts. 12
- 13. What didn't work so well The beginning of our mission was quite difficult because we didn’t see any positive reaction from people. Some actions taken were not efficient concerning managers who usually didn’t have time. We focused a lot on a person who was very interested, and by neglecting the others, they were less interested. Using pilot tests at the beginning was unsuccessful because we were always on the stage : “awareness”. 13
- 14. The evolution 14
- 15. Role Time keeper : CORONAS Aurélia Our decisions were more relevant over the time Strategic : BOUZIANE Amine Study and qualify all the possibilities and actions to be taken Brave actions : DAIF Loubna Take some risky an brave actions to progress Decision maker: DUCOURANT Christophe In case of conflict, he was the Judge Analyst /profiler : CHEAKA Sawdatou Analyze the impact of each action on specific people 15
- 16. Conclusion No matter the number of decisions, the most important was to take good decisions at the right time Progress step by step Choose the right action at the right time (same action has not the same impact in two different moments during the process). 16