The Jack Waterkamp Case Study DQ Summary

I thought this was a fun exercise, but would have been better with more time. In real life I would have handled this a bit different then I did here. The first thing I would have immediately created the central hub and reigned things in. Because everything had to go through the discussion board it became a bit lost and disjointed. I did think that was a great example ( whether it was realized or not) of how important communication is. I appreciated Lisa ( and there were others) who presented me/Jack with direct questions instead of general ones. Again with more time, and to be able to really try and " finish " the project and deliverables would have been great.

Frank Tulli (Jack Waterkamp) Final Reflection

1 of only 3 Submitted

Learning Objectives

initial

midway

reflections

Level of Participation

68.75%

This week provided an opportunity for the class to step outside of our comfort zone a bit. We have not been asked to do too much technically as I thought we would during the program. I personally stress when I know I have to create a video or complete a task on a software product I am not familiar with so I understand why students were hestitant to respond. Although this was a lot to do in a short amount of time I think students did great and I was quite impressed. The role playing was spot on and when we explained further that we needed agenda items for the emergency planning meeting you all provided great questions and concerns that hopefully would have been resolved in this meeting.

I would have liked to have seen reference to the article, "Managing Change: Information Services Framework," as that was the objective of this discussion, to deal with and discuss how to best manage the change taking place in the development of the classroom-based modules to web-based modules. I really enjoyed viewing the videos as, again, you played your parts well and "called out" those who you needed to get information from. The Gantt chart looked great as there was a clear timeline generated by those who responded. Thank you so much to all who participated in the entire discussion process this week and thank you to my team: Lucinda and Terri. We worked very well together throughout and I am very happy with our work!

Nicole Butts

Final Reflections

On-Time Completion Rates

Average all Tasks

DQ1: 100%

It may be that we were trying to accomplish too much. Our overall goal was to have the students actually engage in the project and resolve the issues as a team, isolating the issues and creating a workable plan that could accomplish the goal in time. Creating videos can be an important part of ID as is confronting issues in a positive way face to face. Using Gantt charts is a necessary ID skill, so we really wanted those elements as part of the process. The process as a whole, and the Gantt chart in particular, seemed to be a source of confusion, although SmartSheets is one of the easier tools to use, and we set it up to help expedite the process. We have looked at the process and understand it was a lot to accomplish in what turned out to be five days at best. I think we could have used a short kick-off activity that might have gotten the students onboard and unified (probably should have used the Six Sigma approach to buy-in); but, because we see posts of burn-out on the forums, it is possible the students gave it all they had to give.

Only Beth and Jane used the Six Sigma readings. I believe Frank and Donna also made reference to the readings. We did stress using them in the discussions, and asked on several occasions how the readings related to their tasks. We also provided summaries of the readings. While students indicated they were confused, in responding to their questions, it at times appeared they had not looked at the learning aids and/or watched the tutorial videos. The confrontation videos were delightful and students truly embraced and seemed to understand their characters by the time they produced them. We did see more technical difficulties than we expected; but were able to work through most of them.

Terri Krause

DQ2: 75%

In objective 3 many of the characters posted their tasks on the Gantt chart as directed. Most reflected on the status of the mid-September review and posted their tasks that still needed to be done. Limited discussions followed of possible solutions to ensure completion of the online training modules by the November due date such as bringing on interns. Some discussion about confusing perspectives took place. Not everyone interpreted things the same and then weren’t sure what exactly their responsibilities and tasks were for their character. Most of the class enjoyed the role playing format in its uniqueness. They appreciated the tech help, videos, links, and feedback but several people expressed difficulty in understanding everyone’s roles and tasks due to the different perspectives of the case that were taken, as well as inexperience in corporate protocol and policies. They thought that having more time to develop the characters and interacting with team players would have been helpful.

Overall, I believe that everyone understood the main issues of the case and identified solutions to the problems. In light of the complicated circumstances of the case and the multiple tasks of the Discussion Board, the confusion that prevailed was understandable. As facilitators, we learned a lot about leading a discussion board and managing students. We identified where weakness were and discussed ways to correct and avoid them in the future.

Lucinda Shearman

DQ3: 62.5%

DQ3.3: 37.5%

Role play. Students accepted their roles appropriately although they may not have interpreted their responsibilities correctly-as that character that is.

Verbal Confrontation

What Worked

Elizabeth Walton, 2014

Creative solutions. Students did begin to think outside the box and come up with some thoughtful solutions to the problems. They also suggested considering the idea of confronting management about extending time money and resources even though it was stated in the beginning that it was not negotiable. Sometimes, when you are in the thick of something, you realize it is not going to work without certain things and past guidelines might have to be reconsidered.

Lucinda Shearman

Things We Would Change

Jane Jahnke, 2014

Nicole - "I think if we would have provided more simplified instructions to help guide the students so they would know exactly what we needed it would have helped them gain a better understanding of the entire process. These discussion activities were, indeed, the most challenging but I think everyone did a great job with a short amount of time to work with! I think we asked a lot of the students, especially toward the end of the course as this course was intense already. They were up for the challege though!"

Intro Gantt Chart Earlier | Visual of Overall Process | Agenda Thursday

Terri - " I would introduce the Gantt Chart as DQ1 so that the students could read the directions and know what is coming. It appeared they got so caught up with DQ1 and did not understand it was only a small part of the entire process, so constructing their actual timeline was left for last minute. I think, too, if we had created a visual of the process they were to complete, and how each step fit into the process, they might have spent more time planning how to successfully complete the project and less on some of the incidental issues. Also, we should have created the summarized agenda by Thursday and had them work off of it. That would have moved the process forward.

Simplify Instructions

Simplify Requirements for Objective 3

Lucinda - "I would simplify the requirements for objective 3 to only those things that were directly related to the objective. Perhaps eliminating the reflection since it has no direct impact on constructing a new timeline for completion, and using a simpler Gantt chart. Identifying individual tasks might have been more appropriately done earlier in the week and then constructing the Gantt chart could have been the main focus of the last objective."

The Process

Nicole Butts as JW Hamlin, 2014

Tools Used: A PBL Environment

Reflection/Analysis

Confrontation

Action

Strategy

"Falling For You (Piano Version)” (by Sean Fournier)." Free Music Archive: Sean Fournier. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Jankhe, J., Butts, N., Walton, E., Tulli, F., Shearman, L., Krause, T. EDCI 672, 2014.

Jack Waterkamp DQ Summary

nicole butts | lucinda shearman | terri krause

Key Challenges in the Case

managing change | communication | project management

EDCI 672 | Purdue University