Deleted

Your assignment must be:

· A  thoughtful, detailed analysis  of an actual crisis that really happened--not just a report of the facts of a case

· Approximately 2,500 words in length

· 10% either way is acceptable

· Word count does not include bibliography or appendices

· Please ensure you put the word count on your paper

· Word processed, spell-and grammar checked

· Properly referenced with accurate citations and a bibliography

· At least 3 original references found on your own

· Informed by at least 1 theoretical construct*  discussed in class

· Written in accordance with the framework provided below 

Failure to follow these instructions will result in a reduced mark.

 

Your paper MUST INCLUDE the following format:

Introduction

Provide a very brief overview of your case (where, when, what happened)

Explain which theoretical construct* you will be applying and why

1. Pre-Conditions

Crises rarely occur ‘out of the blue’, instead there are usually several warning signs. Discuss the warning signs and why people did not respond adequately in your particular crisis case.

1. Trigger—Only pick one!

Discuss the point in time that the crisis kicked-off—how, when, why?

· Crisis

Discuss how, when and why the crisis escalated to produce the greatest damage

1. Post-Crisis

Discuss what happened after the acute phase was over

What were the lessons learned to prevent a future crisis event—were they ‘learned’ or ignored post-crisis?

Summary

Consider all phases of your analysis. In sum, what should we have learned from your paper’s analysis and how did the theoretical framework you selected help us understand this crisis better.

*Theoretical constructs could be, for example, Team Resource Management; Normal Accidents; Naturalistic Decision Making; Human Error (Swiss Cheese); Predictable Surprises; Drift Towards Failure; Critical period; Incubation period; Social defenses; Team learning; Groupthink; Destructive pursuit of idealized goals; Toxic Triangle,  Organisational Munchhausen by Proxy; among others discussed in class this term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To pass, you MUST demonstrate three skills in the analysis of your case:

Skill 1.      Research skills through proper selection of a crisis case study. 

· The case study must be a real incident that actually happened.

· The case can be a:

· positive example of a well-managed crisis, for example, US Airways Hudson River landing [Although this example is not available since it was covered in class and the textbook].

· Most likely, the case selected is a bad example or a case of some sort of organizational failure from a changing situation that was not well managed and resulted in some sort of crisis [ie bankruptcy, accident, fatalities, etc]

· The paper cannot be based on a case discussed in class &/or on the list of unauthorized topics.

Skill 2.        Analysis skills through proper application of the 4 stages of the ‘Lifecycle of Crisis’ framework:

· Subheadings MUST be listed exactly as directed in handout

· Only ONE trigger is acceptable: Trigger should not blame individuals [ie operator error] but rather focus on a systemic tipping point that put the ‘accident waiting to happen’ into motion.

· As such, the trigger is NOT the crash, bankruptcy, fatalities, hurricane, earthquake, etc. That should be discussed as part of the preconditions or crisis itself.

Skill 3.       Crititcal thinking skills through proper application of at least one theory—proper application of 2 or 3 is exceptional— IF DONE CORRECTLY.   Name dropping in several theories without fully integrating and applying them in the analysis will NOT BE REWARDED WITH A HIGHER MARK. 

 

Students will excel by following guidance provided, selecting an innovative case, reflecting deeply about it using theoretical constructs provided in class, and analysing the case in an interesting and novel manner within the framework assigned. The framework provides the structure within which you can creatively analyse your crisis and make your case.           

Mark Range	Explanatory Comments
Fail	Papers will fail if the case selected: •       Is listed on the unauthorized list •       Does not clearly apply the ‘Life Cycle of Crisis’ framework •       Does not identify a theory discussed in class to be used in analysis
40-50	In order to pass, paper must: •       Analyze in a thoughtful manner—not just report—the details of a crisis case [ie case that really happened] •       Clearly apply the 4 stages of the Lifecycle of Crisis framework •       Clearly identify and explain ONE trigger as the case tipping point •       Identify one theory to analyze case [Although theory may not be applied exactly right to earn a minimum pass]. •       Trigger must not blame individuals [ie operator error] but rather identify systemic factors that set crisis in motion [ie accident waiting to happen] •       Papers may lose points if: o All directions are not properly followed o There are spelling, grammar, &/or referencing/citation mistakes.  o At least three original references are not cited o Theory is not applied correctly
50-59	Better marks can be achieved by meeting previous criteria as well as:          Analyzing selected case in interesting manner •       Demonstrating good writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes  •       Citing more than three original references •       Correctly applying theory
60-69	A 2nd is warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: •       Selecting an unusual case •       Analyzing selected case in novel manner •       Identifying a ‘covert’ issue that motivated people to not ask ‘why’ •       Identifying an example of ways that not effectively managing change led to crisis •       Demonstrating above average reflection and critical thinking skills •       Demonstrating above average writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes   •       Citing 5 or more original references •       Correctly applying theory in interesting manner. Additional points can be awarded if two theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in!
70+	A 1st is warranted when all previous criteria have been met, and in addition: •       Selecting a very unusual case and representing it in unique perspective          Analyzing selected case in original, innovative manner •       Identifying more than one ‘covert’ issue that motivated people to not ask ‘why’ •       Identifying more than one example of ways that not effectively managing change led to crisis •       Demonstrating exceptional reflection and critical thinking skills •       Demonstrating excellent writing skills with no spelling, grammar, or referencing/citation mistakes  •       Citing 10 or more original references •       Three theoretical frameworks have been properly applied in a thoughtful detailed manner that furthers the analysis in an interesting and innovative way—not just name dropped in!