OBHR 681 Team Final Assignment Fall, 2012

The case, Leading Change at Simmons (available electronically in the course files in Katalyst) is to be analyzed and written up by your team. One written analysis is to be submitted for the team. All team members are expected to contribute equally. It is the teams responsibility to manage this process, however. Please submit a written report of your analysis following these guidelines: This report is to be the independent work of your team alone. Any course material covered throughout the module can be used as part of your analysis and recommendations. The report is due in the Katalyst Homework Tab (1 report per team) no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2012, 5pm EST. The report needs to be typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, and no more than 7 pages in length, excluding any exhibits, appendices etc. Each member of the team is also requested to submit peer evaluations of each team members contribution to the case analysis and write-up (attached). Do not put student names on your report. Please list on the report the team number and student ID numbers for your team. Guiding Case Analysis Questions: 1. Was Siemens in need of change AND ready for change when Eitel took over? Explain? 2. Evaluate the decision to invest company resources into the Great Game of Life Program. In making a decision, what alternatives would you have considered? 3. If you were a member of Fenway Partners (i.e., an owner of Simmons), would you have supported the Great Game of Life proposal? 4. Assume Siemens moves forward with the plan for the Great Game of Life, what recommendations would you make to maximize success? Be as specific as you can in developing your analysis and recommendations. If you must make assumptions in your analysis or in developing your recommendations, be sure they're justified and made clear to me. Justify your analysis and action plan in terms of principles, concepts, and theory addressed in your reading and class discussions as well as your own insight and logic.

Team Member Contributions One of the enduring difficulties of using group projects in a class is assessing the contributions of individual team members to the final product of the team. Consequently, in evaluating group project work and assigning grades, I like to have input from the members of the groups that participated. In this regard, I would like you to evaluate each of your group members on the following scale: 1 = this group member did virtually nothing on the project. 2 = this group member gave minimal input, i.e., he or she came to some meetings and did a few things to contribute. 3 = this group member gave a fair amount of input, i.e., he or she came to most meetings and contributed in meaningful ways. 4 = this group member substantially contributed to the project, i.e., at almost all meetings, major responsibility for data collection, analysis, writing, organizing, etc. 5 = without this group member we would have bought the farm, i.e., this person was a mainstay of our project. Before you assign a score to each group member, please consider your responsibility in this task. Evaluation is always unpleasant. It is always hard to decide what is "fair". On the other hand, it will be something you face the rest of your managerial career and it is not to be taken lightly. Equity is not a social issue alone; it is real. Members of organizations who contribute more should expect more. Be fair, be honest, but be frank. In the spaces below: (1) List the names of all your team members (including yours in the space labeled rater); (2) record a rating (1-5) next to each person's name, including your own. Team member Rater_______________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Rating ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________