Question

Sam Nolan clicked the mouse for one more round of solitaire on the computer in his den. He’d been at it for more than an hour, and his wife had long ago given up trying to persuade him to join her for a movie or are Saturday night on the town. The mind-numbering game seemed to be all that calmed Sam down enough to stop thinking about work and how his job seemed to get worse every day.

Nolan was chief information officer at Century Medical, a large medical products company based in Connecticut. He had joined the company four years ago, and since that time Century had made great progress integrating technology into its systems and processes. Nolan had already led projects to design and build two highly successful systems for century. One was a benefits-administration system for the company’s HR department. The other was a complex Web-based purchasing system that stream-lined the process of purchasing supplies and capital goods. Although the system had been up and running for only a few months, modest projects were that it would save Century nearly $2 million annually. Previously, Century’s purchasing managers were bogged down with shuffling and processing paper. The purchasing process would begin when an employee filled out a materials request form. Then the form would travel through various offices for approval and signatures before eventually being converted into a purchase order. The new web-based system allowed employees to fill out electronic request forms that were automatically e-mailed to everyone whose approval was needed. The time for processing request forms was cut from weeks to days or even hours. When authorization was complete, the system would automatically launch a purchase order to the appropriate supplier. In addition, because the new system had dramatically cut the time purchasing managers spent shuffling paper, they now had more time to work collaboratively with key stakeholders to identify and select the best suppliers and negotiate better deals.

Nolan thought wearily of all the hours he had put in developing trust with people throughout the company and showing them how technology could not only save time and money but also support team-based work and give people more control over their own jobs. He smiled briefly she recalled one long-term HR employee, 61-year-old Ethel Morre. She had been terrified when Nolan first began showing her the company’s intranet, but she was now one of his biggest supporters. In fact, it had been Ethel who had first approached him with idea about a web-based job posting system. The two had pulled together a team and developed an idea for linking century managers, internal recruiters, and job applicants using artificial intelligence software on top of an integrated web-based system. When Nolan had presented the idea to his boss, executive vice-president Sandra Ivey, she had enthusiastically endorsed it, and within a few weeks the team had authorization to proceed with the project.

But everything began to change when Ivey resigned her position six months later to take a plum job in New York. Ivey’s successor, Tom carr, seemed to have little interest in the project. During their first meeting, Carr had openly referred to the project as a waste of time and money. He immediately disapproved several new features suggested by the company’s internal recruiters, even though the project team argued that the features could double internal hiring and save millions in training costs. “Just stick to the original plan and get it done. All this stuff needs to be handled on a personal basis anyway,” Carr countered. “you can’t learn more from a computer than you can talking to real people – and as for internal recruiting, it shouldn’t be so hard to talk to people if they’re already working right here in the company.” Carr seemed to have no understanding of how and why technology was being used. He became irritated when Ethel Moore referred to the system as “web-based”. He boasted that he had never visited Century’s intranet site and suggested that “this internet fad” would blow over in a year or so anyway. Even Ethel’s enthusiasm couldn’t get through to him. She tried to show him some of the HR resources visible on the intranet and explain how it had benefited the department and the company, but he waved her away. “Technology is for those people in the IS department. My job is people, and yours should be, too”. Ethel was crushed, and Nolan realized it would be like beating his head against a brick wall to try to persuade Carr to the team’s point of view. Near the end of the meeting, Carr even jokingly suggested that the project team should just buy a couple of filing cabinets and save everyone some time and money.

Just when the team thought things couldn’t get any worse, Carr dropped the other bomb. They would no longer be allowed to gather input from uses of the new system. Nolan feared that without the input of potential users, the system wouldn’t meet their needs, or even that users would boycott the system because they hadn’t been allowed to participate. No doubt that would put a great big “I told you so” smile right on Carr’s face.

Nolan sighed and leaned back in his chair. The project had begun to feel like joke. The vibrant and innovative human resources department his team had imagined now seemed like nothing more than a pipe dream. But despite his frustration, a new thought entered Nolan’s mind: “Is Carr just stubborn and narrow-minded or does he have a point that HR is a people business that doesn’t need a high-tech job posting system?”

questions:

1. Need to develop some alternatives to Address the Problem Statement
2. Then we need to evaluate the alternatives, then recommend One
3. Find a plane for the alternative we choose.
4. Evaluation of Chosen Alternative For Effectiveness

Answer 1

· The alternatives to address the problem statement are:

- Option1- Nolan should just stay calm until Carr calms down.

- Option 2- Nolan should ensure that the project aligns with the corporate and functional goals. Explain Carr that the Return on Investment (ROI) is higher than the total cost of ownership(investment)

- Option 3- Nolan should first identify why Carr is stubborn- is he a narrow-minded person who does not welcome new ideas or does he consider HR team to be a people business that doesn't need’ a high-tech job position?

· Evaluation of alternatives:

- Option 1: If Nolan just accepts Carr’s behavior, then he might miss out on big opportunities.

- Option 2: Nolan should first ensure that the project aligns with the corporate and functional goals. Then, calculation of ROI needs to be done. This has to be done to ensure the ROI (benefits) are more than the total cost of ownership.

- Option 3: Nolan need to identify Carr’s stubbornness. Without identifying this, he cannot proceed further. He first needs to understand the cause for his stubborn decision. If Nolan knows the reason for Carr’s decision, then it is easier to break the pre-conceived notion of Carr. Hence, this is the best option.

· Plan of action for the chosen alternative (option 3):

Step 1- Research on the track record of Carr to identify his intention. Nolan should identify the topics that interests him. Probably, IT based projects does not interest him because he might not have seen anyone benefit $7 billion with these projects.

Step 2- Once Nolan had identified the projects or topics that interests him, Nolan can strategize his projects to suit his areas of interests. In this case, Carr thinks that HR project is more people-oriented. But the internal job posting intranet would enable them to attract and identify the right talents to deal with the business operations.

Step 3- Nolan need to then align the benefits of the project with the savings (ROI). This would interest Carr greatly because the project would be people-oriented and this would benefit their company in terms of saving money.

· Evaluation of chosen alternatives – The chosen alternatives can be evaluated based on the uses of potential users. Then, the ROI need to be calculated based on its implementation. If the ratio of ROI to investments is higher, then it is a sign that the project would be a great success.

Note- If you like the answer, please provide an up-vote as it would be quite encouraging for me. Thank you.