business policy seminar Assignment 6

Anonymous

Question Description

Case Analysis: The Decision Making Process

For this assignment, you will write a case analysis. You have a choice of using Case 4 Charles Schwab in your textbook, choosing a case from the list below, or researching and selecting a case related to organizational decision making. If you chose this later option, you must have your case approved in advance by your instructor.

Once you have identified the case you will analyze, read an Introduction to Analyzing a Case Study and Writing a Case Study Analysis in Part 5 your book (it’s easy to locate through the Table of Contents).

Then, write a comprehensive case analysis. Your case analysis should cover the following:

1. 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 decisions.

2. 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 alternative; and outcome of the decision. Where possible, analyze the information seeking and information use behaviors in the decision making process.

3. 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.

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

Assignment Requirements:

  • Review and follow the rubric. Click for more options
  • Address the questions above in a comprehensive case analysis. Your 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 2 pages.
  • Use APA format for title page, references and in-text citations. No abstract required.
  • Cite at least 2 credible outside sources in APA format.
  • Upload your assignment to this Safe Assign link by Sunday at 11:59 pm (EST).

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

Case Study Sources

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.

Tutor Answer

MrMark
School: University of Maryland

Hello, I have attached the answer.

Running Head: DEALING WITH PREDICATABLE SURPRISES IN ORGANIZATIONS

Dealing with Predictable Surprises in Organizations
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

1

DEALING WITH PREDICTABLE SUPRISES IN ORGANIZATIONS

2

All organizations and companies face disasters from time to time. The organizations
might have predicted these disasters or not. In fact, to some extent, all organizations at one
particular time have failed to pay attention to an issue that later caused a disastrous crisis that
brought harm to the organization. It could, for instance, be a firm ignoring the fact that a
potential customer is facing financial challenges or even a possibility that a company's plant is
facing terrorist threats for firms dealing with product production. The failure of organizations to
counter problems caused by predictable surprises is due to organizational, political, and
psychological barriers.
It is unquestionable that, in most cases, unforeseen happenings take place without the
executives' knowledge, and therefore they should not receive any blame for failing to predict
these happenings. However, in a case where seniors foresee the possibility of a crisis and choose
to ignore, they should take the blame for the damage caused by the disaster. Several reasons can
make the seniors or the management of an organization to fail to predict the happening of a
crisis.
For ins...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Return customer, been using sp for a good two years now.

Anonymous
Thanks as always for the good work!

Anonymous
Excellent job

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors