Neslihan Bagci

Youssef Boutefouste

Larissa Bouwe

Yenzo Legrand

Fanny RoguèsTeacher : José Pietri

1

Introduction to the EIS simulation Role playing game Team & teammates

Others areas-team dynamic Strategy announcement First decisions-feedbacks-Adjustments Results Information Decision making

2

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

3

Work team #4 Composed with:

Fanny Rogues Neslihan Bagci Larissa Bouwe Youssef Boutefouste Yenzo Legrand

4

Time Keeper

Validate the actions Lead the team

No time control

RoleRoleImpactImpact

Without herWithout her

5

Improve the adopters

Know the tool simulation

Quicker actions

Lost time with tool

RoleRoleImpactImpact

Without HerWithout Her

6

Channel the team

Give good ideasMake the team go on

Team split

RoleRoleImpactImpact

Without herWithout her

7

Approve the common decision

Analyze the ideas

Give good analyzes on the actions

Go too fast

RoleRoleImpactImpact

Without himWithout him

8

Make a feedback

Analyze the actio

nsIncrease the users and

adopters

Take some bad decisions but one good

RoleRoleImpactImpact

Without himWithout him

9

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.

10

Since process has been splited in 4 mains steps:

Aware Interested Trying Adopter

We’ve drafted this:

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

23

45

1

7

18

19

Context

We decided to meet users of our future system in order to create the best working

environment and obtain their cooperation.

20

Step Action Objective Error Conse-quences

Crises Managing

11Meet userMeet 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  

22Get Get

overview on overview on task forcetask 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

33Obtain more Obtain more

precisionprecision

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

44To find a To find a

operational operational sponsorsponsor

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 conditions21

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

22

Time (min) 45 75 90 105 120

Number of decisions

4 11 24 43 58

23

24

Thank you for your attention

25