Running head: Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 1

Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels

Melissa Fruechte

EDCI 672 Purdue University

Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 2

Stakeholders

Iris Daniels (and team), the designer on the project is primarily concerned with

the design and presentation of a prototype that communicates the instructional approach

and feasibility to the consortium. She hopes that the prototype will be received well by

the consortium members and that development will be able to commence.

Jim Huggins, Iris manager, works with client Hill Industries and is primarily

concerned with ensuring the cultural differences that Iris is experiencing in her work with

an international team are addressed and helps her to develop a new approach to

discussions and decision making that will hopefully better serve the groups goals of

coming to an agreement for the prototype.

Hill Industries, a client of the manufacturing management software products

created by Lapin and member of the consortium is primarily concerned with Lapins

design of an effective web-based training option for the software that is used by engineers

and product designers within Hill Industries and its suppliers.

French software developer Lapin, subject matter expert of the software being

developed, is primarily concerned with developing web-based training that fits into its

business strategy and meets the expectations of companies within the consortium. Lapin

believes that the technical constraints greatly hinders what tools would work for the

development of the training.

Seven Member Consortium, the client/recipient of the web-based training (WBT)

software being developed by Lapin is primarily concerned with the design and technical

standards of the WBT. The consortium wanted to ensure that the WBT achieved cross-

platform compatibility as well as provides an instructionally sound user experience. They

Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 3

are also concerned with coming to an agreement about the design approach for the

training. During the WBT review meeting, Dieter Hoffman, member of the consortium

and an engineering representative from a German aircraft company highlights that

instructional design thinking and language permeates U.S. but not French training. This

observation helped each group understand where the other was coming from a bit better.

Jacqueline Colbert the lead training developer from Lapin is concerned with what

learners will expect or want from the training. She believes that learners will want a

theory section with a subsequent problem to work on or a screen capture that

demonstrates the task.

As project leader of the group that trains prospective Lapin software users,

Kimberly Mooney is primarily concerned with presenting a prototype that would

demonstrate the Americans design approach and would show that the agree upon

technical approach would integrate well with the design proposal.

Instructional Design Challenges

The key instructional design challenge that Iris faces falls into the design phase of

the ADDIE instructional framework. Iris and her team have been tasked with designing a

web-based training and a prototype that meets the needs of varying international

perspectives while navigating diverse corporate and interactional cultures.

There are two primary case-specific constraints: 1) differing design expectations

and 2) lack of cultural analysis, awareness and experience working with international

teams, specifically regarding decision-making and the purpose of meetings. The initial

WBT training that Lapin proposed was well designed and written but did not incorporate

the level of interactivity that the U.S. based companies had hoped to see included. As
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 4

indicated by the blank stares that Iris received when mentioning practice, feedback and

transfer, it was evident that the French and German participants did not have the same

background knowledge about instructional design as the Americans. Jacqueline Colbert,

lead training developer at Lapin, believes that learners want section on theory paired with

a screen capture that demonstrates the task. The U.S. members had hoped for more

learner control and involvement, including the use of case studies, feedback and

simulations. The second case-specific constraint is about Iris lack of experience with

cultural variances in communication, decision-making and expectations, as evidenced in

her experiences during the WBT review meeting and her conversations with Jacqueline

after the meeting. Iris was perplexed by the lack of discussion during the meeting given

her connection and productive conversation with Jacqueline one on one. Iris noted that

Jacqueline brought elements of their one on one conversation to the next days meeting as

her own ideas. Jim suggests to Iris that she utilize one on one time with the French to

discuss ideas and then use large group meetings as a place for decisions to be approved.

I would rank the lack of cultural analysis and awareness as first priority in this

case, followed by the instructional design and case-constraints surrounding differing

perspectives/understandings on design expectations for the WBT. If the gaps in cultural

understanding are addressed first it will be easier to have effective conversations

regarding design expectations. There will be little progress if an individualistic approach

is taken in a collectivist culture (Munter, 1993). By addressing the discrepancy in cultural

perspectives about the purpose of meetings and the decision-making process, Iris will be

able to facilitate a more effective conversation regarding online design principles and

help the group come to a decision about the design of the web-based training.
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 5

Readings and Analysis

As Ford (2001) states, over time successful teams develop culturally distinct

pathways to communicate, problem solve, make decisions, and resolve conflict (p. 1). It

is my opinion that the consortium has not yet reached this level of success in their team

dynamics. Rather than making assumptions about culture, the purpose of meetings and a

method of communication (especially when working with international teams) it is

important to be vigilant in becoming proficient in communicating across cultural barriers

in order to move a project forward successfully to completion. As Munter (1993) asserts,

to be effective in any culture, however, managers should consider the following seven

issues before they begin to communicate (p. 69). The seven issues encompass

communication objectives, communication style, credibility, selecting audiences, a

message strategy, overcoming language difficulties and the use of nonverbal behaviors.

The lack of cultural and communication analysis before working with an international

team caused challenges and delays for Iris and her team that could have been avoided

with additional preparation. As described in the Walkgrove Limited article (2015), to

better understand our learners, its important to determine what we mean by culture and

how it can open our eyes to the distinct needs of learners from different contexts (p. 2).

By having a better understanding of the practices that pervade the environments in which

individuals will be consuming the content, we will be better equipped to facilitate the

meetings that lead to stronger design, development and implementation of training.

Several years ago, I taught at a charter school whose primary student body

consisted of Muslim students. The administration was comprised of Muslim men and

there were only a handful of female teachers at the school. I quickly learned that there
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 6

was a difference in cultural expectations regarding the roles of men and women,

communication and leadership style in that organization than what I was used to in other

teaching situations. By learning about the Muslim culture, customs and the expected

communication approach, I was better equipped to interact with administration, as well as

the families during conflict, conferences and academic discussions about students. Like

Iris, by having a deeper understanding of the culture that I was interacting with, I was

able to have relationships and interactions that allowed for more productive and positive

experiences.

Solutions

Two potential solutions for Iris instructional design challenge in this case are: 1)

to conduct a thorough cultural and communication analysis of all regions where members

of the consortium and users of the WBT training are located and 2) to propose that all

stakeholders agree on and follow a well-known methodology for the remainder of the

project. Given that members of the consortium have varying instructional design

understanding and training, it will be important to utilize a common methodology such as

ADDIE, SAM or Gagnes Nine Events of Instruction as a foundation to reduce added

delays, minimize assumptions and help with decision-making.

To address the design challenges and case constraints, Solution 1, conducting a

cultural and communication analysis will assist Iris in the navigating design challenge of

designing an effective WBT that meets the needs of a large, international clientele. The

analysis will help Iris have a better understanding of the communication and interaction

dissimilarities that consortium members bring to the table. By having a deeper

understanding of their norms, Iris will be better equipped to facilitate discussions about
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 7

design expectations and utilize the large group meetings in a way that meets cultural

guidelines. By conducting an analysis, the design challenges and constraints will

naturally be addressed when Iris uses the information she gathers and adjusts her project

management approach.

Solution 2, proposing that consortium follow an instructional design methodology

would help Iris guide the members through the lifecycle of the prototype. It is not clear

from the case study that Lapin utilized a methodology during the design and development

of the first WBT version, which had not met expectations of some members of the

consortium. Utilizing a well-defined methodology will assist in the overarching

instructional design challenge by guiding all stakeholders through the process in a

systematic way. Additionally, by using a well-known methodology, Iris will be able to

teach the consortium members through the constraints of differing design expectations

and communication concerns if they are all following the same process. For example, if

using the ADDIE model, the differing perspectives on acceptable design could be

discussed during the analysis and design phases so as not to be surprised in the

development phase by a product that doesnt align with expectations of the stakeholders.

Iris will need to utilize Jims suggestions to address the cultural communication

differences in order to meet the stakeholders in a place where they feel comfortable

sharing ideas and making decisions.

Pros/Cons of Proposed Solutions

The pros to solution 1 are that Iris will avoid additional delays in progress with

the project because she will have a better understanding of how each group prefers to

communicate, make decisions and interact. Iris alludes to the fact that getting to this
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 8

prototype had taken longer than anyone had expected (Ertmer, Quinn & Glazewski,

2914, p. 190) because it was her first time working with an international team.

Misunderstandings and confusion will subside and the minimal time that the consortium

members have together during in-person meetings will be used more effectively to move

the project forward. The cons to solution 1 are that an in-depth analysis is time intensive

and given that the project has already taken longer than expected, it will create an added

strain on time, resources and personnel to complete the research necessary. While the

information that Jim provides to Iris about what he remembers from his business trip to

France last year is helpful, it is not a conclusive analysis of cultural norms to the level of

detail that Iris could utilize effectively during the remainder of the project.

The pros to solution 2 include a level playing field and process guideline for all

stakeholders, including but not limited to: Lapin, the consortium, Iris and Hill Industries.

Given the varying levels of instructional design understanding among stakeholders,

having a common methodology will not only ensure that the project continues to progress

through each stage but also gives the stakeholders an organized and proven process that

will guide each step through the process. Additionally, following a proven methodology

will help reduce the amount of time spent on trial and error for the next prototype and

final product. The cons for solution 2 include the added amount of time it will take for the

stakeholders to research, decide on, learn and implement a methodology, particularly with

the varying levels of experience of instructional design that has been evident in meetings

up to this point. An additional con to solution 2 is that Jim, Iris and Kimberly have

already decided to move forward with the next iteration of the prototype so if the
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 9

utilization of a new methodology was selected, the prototype would likely be put on hold

and the project would be delayed until all stakeholders were up to speed.

Final Recommendation

My final recommendation is that solution 1 be implemented in this case. By

completing an analysis, Iris will be aware of the cultural norms for the stakeholders

involved and will be able to effectively facilitate discussions and meetings that will

ensure time is being used wisely and decisions are being made to move the project

forward. Without a clear understanding of preferred communication methods, Iris will

continue to feel confused by the lack of progress in meetings and the project may

continue to stall if stakeholders are not on the same page regarding design and vision for

the project. Solution 1 is the best option because it will provide a resolution for all

constraints and challenges in this case: the overarching design challenge of a prototype

that meets the needs of an international and diverse audience as well as helps Iris ensure

that cultural differences are being taken into consideration during meetings and in

decision making, which will help move the final constraint (varying understanding of

design expectations) from a constraint to merely a decision that needs to be made. I

would address the con of solution 1, the extended amount of time that would be required

of an in-depth analysis, by hiring a consultant that is an expert in cross-

cultural/international team communication and team management to provide all

stakeholders with the tools, techniques and understanding of each others cultural norms

to proceed through the project successfully without added misunderstanding, delays or

confusion.
Case Analysis for Team #3: Iris Daniels 10

References

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2014). The ID CaseBook: Case

studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ford, J. (2001). Cross cultural conflict resolution in teams. Retrieved from

http://www.mediate.com/articles/ford5.cfm

Munter, M. (1993). Cross-cultural communication for managers. Business Horizons,

36(3), 69-78.

Walkgrove Limited. Developing e-learning for a global audience. (2015). Retrieved

from http://www.walkgrove.co.uk/assets/resources/Walkgrove-white-paper-

global-audiences.pdf