Unit 6 Assignment (BUS411)

Due Date: 11:59 pm, Sunday of Unit 6 Points: 100 Overview: The process of making decisions is one of the most complex in all of business. There are many different theories about the best ways in which a business can make a decision. This week, your assignment is to create an analysis of a case related to the decision-making process. Instructions:

• Identify the case you will analyze. You can choose from Case 27 in your textbook or choose from the list included below.

• Read “An Introduction to Analyzing a Case Study and Writing a Case Study Analysis” in your textbook, part 5.

• Write a comprehensive case analysis. Your case analysis should cover the following:

o The context of the decision-making processes, including, for example: the goals, activities, history or culture of the organization; the complexity and special features of the task or problem; the major stakeholders of the decision.

o The main phases or activities of the decision-making process, including, for example: the background leading up to the problem situation; problem recognition; development and evaluation of alternatives; selection of alternatives; outcome of the decision. Where possible, analyze the information seeking and information use behaviors in the decision-making process.

o Analyze your case using one or more of the models introduced this week. You may also introduce other theoretical perspectives/cases to enrich your analysis. Show how these models/perspectives provide insight into your case.

o Assess the overall quality of the decision-making process. Identify its strengths and limitations. Suggest ways of improving the process.

BUS411– Business Policy Seminar

Unit 6 Assignment: Case Analysis: The Decision-Making Process

Requirements:

• Review and follow the grading rubric.

• Address the questions above in a comprehensive case analysis. You analysis should contain a clear introduction, body and conclusion.

• Focus on quality of writing and content. Generally, a strong paper will be a minimum of two pages.

• Use APA format for title page, references and in-text citations. No abstract required.

• Cite at least two credible outside sources in APA format.

Be sure to read the criteria by which your work will be evaluated before you write and again after you write. List of possible sources for the case study: These are initial suggestions that might help you to identify cases. You would typically need to look for additional material after selecting a case to study.

• Bazerman, M. H., & Watkins, M. D. 2004. Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming, and How to Prevent Them. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

• Burns, Christopher. 2008. Deadly Decisions: How false knowledge sank the Titanic, blew up the shuttle and led America into war. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

• Browne, Mairead. 1993. Organizational Decision Making and Information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (Decision making by a council of a higher education institute in Sydney, Australia.)

• Chiles, James R. 2001. Inviting Disaster: Lessons From the Edge of Technology. New York: HarperBusiness. (Air France Concorde, Apollo 13, Hubble Space Telescope, etc)

• Choo, Chun Wei. 2005. Information Failures and Organizational Disasters. Sloan Management Review 46 (3):8-10.

• Choo, Chun Wei. 2009. Organizational Disasters: Why They Happen and How They May be Prevented. Management Decision, 46 (1): 32-46

• Chua, Alton Y.K., Selcan Kaynak, and Schubert S.B. Foo. 2006. An Analysis Of The Delayed Response To Hurricane Katrina Through The Lens Of Knowledge Management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (3):391-403.

• Drummond, Helga. 1997. Escalation in Decision Making: The Tragedy of Taurus. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

• Ermann, M. David, and Richard J. Lundman, eds. 2001. Corporate and Governmental Deviance: Problems of Organizational Behavior in Contemporary Society. 6th ed.

• Evan, William M., and Mark Manion. 2002. Minding the Machines: Preventing Technological Disasters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR. (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Ford-Firestone, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Y2K, and many others.)

• Fay, S. 1996. The Collapse of Barings: Panic, Ignorance and Greed. London: Arrow Business Books.

• Finkelstein, S., Whitehead, J., & Campbell, A. 2009. Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

• Gerstein, M.S., & Ellsberg, M. 2008. Flirting with Disaster: Why Accidents Are Rarely Accidental. New York: Union Square Press. (Chernobyl, Merck Vioxx, Hurricane Katrina)

• E. Frank Harrison. 1999. The Managerial Decision-Making Process. 5th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Iranian hostage crisis, Philip Morris in 1984, General Motors in 1978)

• Kovacs, Beatrice. 1990. The Decision-Making Process for Library Collections: Case Studies in Four Types of Libraries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Collection development decision making in public libraries, school libraries, academic libraries, and special libraries.)

• National Geographic. 2004-2013. Seconds from Disaster. Documentary films that "investigate historically relevant man-made and natural disasters ... by analyzing the causes and circumstances that ultimately affected the disaster."

• Neck, Chris P., and Gregory Moorhead. 1992. Jury Deliberations in the Trial of US vs. John Delorean: A Case Analysis of Groupthink Avoidance and Enhanced Framework. Human Relations 45 (10):1077-1091.

• Perrow, Charles. 1999. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, Bhopal Union Carbide plant, air traffic control.)

• Shrivastava, Paul. Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. 2nd ed. London: P. Chapman, 1992.

• The 9/11 Commission. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton.

• The Members of the Committee of the Inquiry. 2000. BSE Inquiry Report, Volume 1: Findings & Conclusions. London, UK: The Stationery Office.

• Walker, J. S. 2004. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Assignment Grading Rubric

CRITERIA Deficient Proficient Exemplary

0-7 points 8-12 points 13-15 points Introduction and Thesis Statement

Unclear or incomplete.

Introduction with a partially developed thesis.

Clear, well- developed, introduction and thesis.

0-20 points 21-26 points 27-30 points Supporting Evidence/Analysis

Lacks specific, credible, and relevant support. Development of position / argument is inadequate or missing.

Adequately supported with a limited spectrum of specific, credible, and relevant evidence. Development of position/argument is thoughtful and persuasive but lacks some detail.

Well-supported with a broad spectrum of specific, credible, and relevant evidence. Position / argument is well- developed, very thoughtful, and persuasive.

0-6 points 7-8 points 9-10 points Clarity and Organization

Lacks organization, logic and clarity. Transitions seldom or never used to connect ideas.

Generally organized, logical and clearly articulated. Transitions often smoothly connect ideas.

Paragraph formation is clear. Fully organized, logical and clearly articulated. Transitions smoothly connect ideas.

0-14 points 15-17 points 18-20 points Professional Communication

Does not demonstrate proficiency in spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.

Some spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and/or sentence structure errors.

Polished and demonstrates a high level of proficiency in spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.

0-7 points 8-12 points 13-15 points Conclusion No conclusion

included. Some attempt at a conclusion, but it is not well written.

Well written and fully developed conclusion.

0-6 points 7-8 points 9-10 points APA Paper has no APA

formatting, or paper has an APA cover, but no references or in text citations. Less than the required number of credible references provided.

Paper lacks one element of APA (cover, references or in text citations), but has at least one credible reference.

Paper has all elements of APA formatting (cover, references and in text citations) with the required number of credible references.