Forum Minutes

Names: Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes,

Calvin White

MINUTES
MEETING CALLED BY Group 1

TYPE OF MEETING eDiscussion

NOTE TAKER Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti)

DATE(S)/TIME September 18, 2016 October 2, 2016

ATTENDEES Kathryn Burns, Nicole Baldino (Gugliotti), Angela Stokes, Calvin White

ABSCENT John Taylor

Agenda Topic (s)

MEETING DURATION:

DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee

In what ways does the Committee find itself in a complex, uncertain, and/or dynamic
environment as it develops its recommendations?

The degree of situational variables (degree of spill):

Oil companies have a very dangerous business and as history has proven accidents
happen
The committee has to provide a plan that both covers the worst of the worst (Exxon,
Gulf Oil Spill, etc.) to just minute leak at the terminal
Every scenario is a hypothetical
All plans always fail at the first sign of adversity (personal experience), which means
you need to have a plan that is easily adaptable to any situation
Different possible causes and locations of spills

Results of spills:
Devastates the immediate area and can have detrimental effects on wildlife, potable
water, etc.
Each type of spill is a result of numerous factors
Different scenarios for spills can have different implications: sense of urgency,
efficiency, environmental affect, financial, logistics, social and public relations
How could any decision hold up over time: for example will equipment still be
usable/available/relevant in 5 years/10 years/longer?

The Committee and company itself is complex and dynamic:

No initial direction or agenda
 Off topic "worst case" arguments
Emotions are running high
Tying up extensive capital to just allow equipment to be maintained for a just-in-case
emergency is a concern for some.
Theres no actual leadership or roles assigned to anyone. Its pretty much a
collaborative opinion debate where no actual solution could come from.

A variety of hypothetical scenarios that could happen over months, years, or decades, is
creating a complex and uncertain environment. This is compounded by the different variables
CONCLUSIONS that contribute in varying degrees to each scenario - efficiency, environmental, financial,
logistics, social and public relations.

DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee

What heuristics or biases is the Committee encountering in the case narrative (if any)?
Are these likely to be troublesome? Have they already been troublesome?

There is clearly a fair amount of bias at play here. The main biases at play are excessive
individualism, confirmation, and availability. Each of these together is not only likely but
has already been troublesome. The meeting has been driven by emotion and not clear
headed brainstorming and problem solving. The biases already at play have led to the first
hour of the meeting arguing about what spills are more important.
Excessive individualism (self-interest) - very clear each member of the committee is
approaching the problem from their respective departments.
o Chris seems to really be focused on the money aspect. He is constantly arguing his
case about tying up the companys capital in spill equipment for Murky Oil. He is
only worried about his department as a member from the Finance Department. He
gives an idea but he still hadnt realized that it is going to cost no matter which
direction they choose to go. He seems to have an anchoring bias leaving him to
only see the negative of having equipment sit idly by. His sole focus is on the
money and doesnt seem to be able to see other perspectives. Chris would rather
the team keep extensive records to be able to get/utilize equipment when its
actually needed which is a task that would lie with another department.
o Sandy on the other hand has been arguing with another team member about
resources for a spill, and still no ideas on how to approach the problem. She seems
more interested in proving that this venture is a bridge to far and not worth her
time (mental blocks with assumptions and overreliance on logic). She seems to
think that everything is a disaster waiting to happen and continuously provides her
opinion on the matter. Sandy is sole focus is on the cleanup and how it can be
done quickly. She is able to present many different ways in which a spill can occur
and has solutions to those problems but she is unable to see the money side.
o Pat seems to be restless and would like a solution now throwing out different
questions but not actually guiding the group to elaborate on their suggestions to
try and find a common ground.
Confirmation bias: no one is really presenting alterative options along with their
ideas.
Availability Bias: The team has to make a decision based on the environment today
but the plan will be in-place for much longer than that. The team is considering the
equipment/technology/available capital for investment as of today but not what could
change in the next 1/5/10 years.
The team also has to be careful to not be overly cautious (loss aversion bias) in
evaluating and making this decision. It seems like the lack of framing the problem
 and the biases already at play have led to the first hour of the meeting being arguing.
The team should step back, set the stage for decision making, recognize their
biases/obstacles and frame the problem before discussing the options.
Overconfidence in their own judgment: all the team members are 100% certain that a
leak or spill will happen at certain locations but then dismiss how extensive the spill
could be no matter where the spill originates.
Instead of making organized strategic decision they are using emotions to drive the
meeting. And since they are using the Intuitive or system one type of response they
are unaware of how the emotions are driving their ideas and thoughts. If they were to
each take a step back and organize their thoughts and suggestions they may be able to
invoke the System two or contrast reflective thinking to allow a slower more
thoughtful debate.

The main biases at play are excessive individualism, confirmation, and availability. An
emotionally driven meeting has resulted in little progress or even understanding of the
CONCLUSIONS
problems at hand. Each member of the committee needs to refocus and step outside their own
departments and biases in order to not only work together but do what is best for the company
and environment.

DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee

Is framing getting in the way for any members of the Committee?

Framing is the root of the problem.

Should the focus be on spills that have already happened or spills that could happen?
Since the problem statement is not clearly framed no one is taking into consideration
all possible viewpoints. Until the problem is framed, there is no way to adequately
conduct analysis for solutions.
Looking again at what Garvin has to say about decision making, A successful
decision depends on a clear understanding of the issue at hand and its root cause(s).
How can the team possible generate alternatives, evaluate those alternatives and
make a decision without a full understanding of the problem?
With everyone showing confirmation bias and with the inability to have anyone
provide a framework no amount of meetings or brainstorming will help this
committee determine a course of action.

Sandy and Chris are worried about spills that have NOT happened. They seem so enamored
by dealing with a major oil spill (cost and more possible worst case scenarios) that they are
not looking at ways to prevent it from happening or how to mitigate a spillperiod. What the
team leader should have started with for questions is: why has management asked them to
prepare a response plan? Have there been accidents with other companies? How did they
respond? What was the fallout after the spill? There have been other major oil spills in the
past (I know I am teetering on halo effect) but how did those companies contain the spill?
What has not been thought of to contain a spill? Any there new technologies out there that
have been proven to reduce environmental damage or speed up the recovery process? If they
were given questions in that aspect it might have focused them on providing creative solutions
to a very serious (potential) problem.

Committee needs to define the problem.

The team should fully outline the problem at hand including root cause analysis and
decision making objectives.
Since the problem statement is not clearly framed no one is taking into consideration
 all possible viewpoints.
Everyone is worried about all types of extreme cases and not really narrowing down
the problem.
Is there a clearly defined team leader?

Pat did try to set up a framework.

The attempt was to take a different perspective on the problem at hand and to
simplify the need for this equipment and how might these spill occur.
Back fired - the generalized question was posed, per Pat, and there were no other
framing questions to guide anyone back to the problem at hand. No one was able to
weigh different outcomes for the problem. The team leader should have been able to
recognize this and focus everyone to a couple of scenarios and solutions, posing
additional questions to lead the team in the right direction.

A more defined "framework" needs to be established

The group needs to refocus - why did management assign this task? What specifically
they are looking for his committee to solve?
More data in terms of the amount of spills per year, the amount of money it would
cost the company to have equipment available at all times for the spills, to determine
if it is worth having the equipment stay in one area or be able to pull equipment from
different areas of the country if need be and how much that would cost
Brainstorming session needed to clarify objectives.
Emotions are too high right now - brainstorming or diagrams will
help their situation until they take a step back

The framework was initially lacking and instead the problem too generalized which lead
the group astray. Framing therefore has become the main problem because without a
CONCLUSIONS
clear, defined problem and set of objectives, the team is off on their own agendas and
tangents. This has led to an emotional debate with each member unable to see anything
outside their own biases.

DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee

Would brainstorming or other creative exercises help the Committee move forward?
Why or why not?

Brainstorming would help the committee move forward:

Set up an environment where no one should criticize, dispute or correct an idea. This
would allow all members to offer their ideas without impediment, which could stop
the arguing later on when the planning starts. It could also provide that spark needed
for the group to be more creative to answering the problem posed by the leadership.
This would allow the team to evaluate all the variables at play (cost, benefits,
intangibles (reputation), time, and feasibility) but also to conduct some scenario
development.
The cause and affect analysis or Fishbone diagram would work very well at helping
prioritize issues and work on solutions.
 While brainstorming could help there needs to be some order and leadership to the
session. Being able to provide a solution and following through with suggestions and
alternatives would benefit this team. The team leader needs to be able to take charge
during these sessions and allow for a thought process to be completed before
someone else just jumps in. A heated debate is welcomed as long as the team leader
can make sure it doesnt become more.
Id like to see the team investigate if this is something they can outsource via contract
to a company that specializes in environmental clean-up to cover the larger spills or
more difficult to clean-up spills. This might ultimately cost more upfront but would
likely be less expensive for the company in the case of a large spill.

Overall, brainstorming could be an effective way to refocus the group. Suggested methods
include Influence Diagram, scenario development and the Fishbone diagram. If done
properly these will help reset the group's mindset and help come up with actual solutions. The
CONCLUSIONS responsibility is on team leader to be an organized and constructive leader to make sure the
brainstorming session does not become another free for all. The brainstorming session will
only succeed if everyone can keep on topic and level headed.

DISCUSSION A. Murky Oil Spill Committee

What solutions should the Committee consider as it drafts its report to the top
management team?

One solution to a spill contingency would be to work with port operations and their
tugs to see if there is a way to store oil booms onboard (since oil floats on water).
They might need to be retrofitted to the tug but it could provide a nearly instance
response as they are able to reel out the boom as soon as the spill is spotted. It isnt a
permanent fix but the initial response would extend the time allotted to work clean up
as the environmental damage would be minimal. For total clean a mobile barge with
an onboard storage tank and pump could be used to pump the oily water onboard for
transfer to an oil/water separator and further limit environmental damage. Cost would
be minimal compared to stockpiling equipment and can be very mobile.
Another option would be for the terminal itself to have its own filtering system built
into the pier. Almost like the Panama Canal where there are gates to transit
through, it can be done at the terminal. And since oil floats on water it does not have
to be all the way to the sea floor. It needs to be above the surface of the water (and
potential wake height) and just below the same height of the wake (~ 3-4 feet). The
gates and walls of the new terminal where the ships pull in would provide instant
 clean up and very low environmental damage. However initial cost would be
significant, as more infrastructure and maintenance will be needed.
It was brought up in the meeting that the "best" all-encompassing solution would be
to have the equipment on site and ready to deploy. While this would cover all
scenarios it is the most expensive and because of the rarity it not an efficient or smart
use of capitol. I feel the best thing to do is use the fishbone diagram to outline all the
possible causes of spills and then working from the smallest/most likely come up
with more cost effective solutions. Having one "spill czar" already appointed would
be a good point person that could make quick decisions in case of any type of spill.
Another possible solution would be a comprehensive plan that tells the team what to
do (hopefully) regardless of the circumstance: almost like a flowchart. The team
would have the equipment and the means to mop-up small spills. This would
hopefully be lower investment initially but would need to include periodic reviews of
the equipment to make sure it is up-to-date/calibrated/functioning, especially if it is
equipment would not be utilized too much besides spill clean-up. In the case of any
spill, large or small, a PR plan should also be included, i.e. how to handle press
releases even if it is to contact a PR person within the company.

There are a variety of solutions depending on scenarios. It will be hard to present the "best"
option without data to determine various costs; i.e., amount of spills per year, and then costs
associated with equipment capital and clean up. The specific solutions range from less
CONCLUSIONS expensive portable quick response options, to more expensive terminal changes, and then to
the most expensive designated equipment storage options. For all circumstances having a
dedicated "spill czar" will help with delegation and making quick effective decisions the
moment specific scenarios occur.

DISCUSSION B. Managing Stakeholder Demands

Instructions: Manage the competing and conflicting demands of various stakeholders.

Toy Industry
Who are the stakeholders? The Stakeholders here are the workers, board members, and
stock holders of the toy company.
No recall necessary - The Toy Industry, have completed the steps appropriate for the toys;
i.e., toys were properly labeled for the age groups and safety instructions were provided
with a toll free number. Additional note compiled stating the injuries occurred when the
instructions were not followed and given to children under the recommended age limit.
Because the injuries occurred outside of how the toys should be used they should not
suffer the financial and PR ramifications of a recall and redesign.
Financial outcomes - recalls could be very expensive. What would the costs be for
increased safety testing?

Additional Information -

o Fishbone diagraph - clarify and address some of the problems to safety concerns.
Could help the toy industry figure out what the exact issue is in the process. This
could help the toy company get to the root of the problem and in addition show
the consumers that action has been taken.

o Brainstorm session - possible problems associated with the complaints and find
alternative solutions. This could help see the toys from the consumers
perspective and if there are no additional alternatives found that could also be
 presented to the consumer.

o 5 Whys Process - Yes they have an extensive process but what caused the
injuries? Is it a manufacturing issue? Did the plant hire new staff and not train
them correctly? Are the instructions not descriptive enough for the adults? What
is the process for safety testing? Does it change depending on the toy? How
many tests do they incur before being placed on the shelves for sale? These are
the questions that need to be asked to find out why there is such a sudden
increase in the toys injuries and deaths. There is a human factor here and they
need to find it.

Customer Priority - Since the customer is the number one priority for the Toy Industry
should be able to show something for the complaints. Performing another round of testing
and safety for the products and publishing their findings. Noting that the age restrictions
on the box are there for the consumers safety and if purchased for someone outside the
age range they forfeit all liability to the consumer. This will show the consumer
stakeholders that they heard their complaints and care about child safety. They should
also restate and re-emphasize that all existing toys have been safety checked for
appropriate age groups. Gather some data to show that the toys are not causing injuries to
age appropriate children; this should be a less costly solution then a full recall.

STEEPL Factors from Schwartz - legal liabilities versus social/political/economic

perspective. Is the customer always right?

Consumer Group
Who are the stakeholders? The Stakeholders here are the parents, families, and friends of
children who have been injured using these toys. This group is probably dealing with a
large amount of emotional biases because of the nature of the problem. Of all groups of
people, children tend to get the largest emotional response. Also any customer - past,
present or future potential customer.

Financial outcomes - The consumer group will likely not be affected by the financial
costs that the toy company would be if a recall or redesign were to take place. Could
recalls or increased testing increase toy price?

What exactly does the consumer group want?

o Does the Consumer Group have any specific suggestions now that they know a
testing and safety program is in place? Are there areas that they feel could be
improved even more: clearer instructions or bigger font for labeling age ranges
on packaging for examples? Having specific suggestions may help them in this
case as the Toy Industry will want to respond from a PR perspective.

Optional suggestions (instead of a recall) -

o Labeling - Change their marketing (commercials/signs/packaging etc.) to make it

even more clear which age group the toys are for.

o Safety Testing - Some effort to change or update their safety testing. Maybe also
 some details about how they do their safety testing could also be shared.

Additional information needed: The consumers need to provide valid information on the
injuries and what caused them.

Overall, this comes down to a question of liability. Both groups feel the other is liable and
therefore wants the other to make the changes. The toy industry may be covered legally but
from a social/political/economic perspective, the Consumer Group may be able to pressure
them in to making additional changes/improvements. No true recall seems to be necessary.
CONCLUSIONS Information should be delivered on a two way street - clearly delivered and a
line for consumers to report. Consumers will help them feel that they have been heard and that
they now know the whole story. While the consumer is not necessarily always right they are
the ones that keep the toy company in business so their complaints must be taken seriously.

OTHER:

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

References

Garvin D.A. All the wrong moves (case study on the decision-making process). Strategic Direction.
2006;22 (7):19.

Garvin, D. A., (2011). Decision Making. In MentorManager, Harvard Business School Publishing.
Retrieved from https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/import/ptos/51705033

Kahneman D, Lovallo D, Sibony O. Dangerous biases can creep into every strategic choice. Heres how
to find them before they lead you astray. Harvard Business Review. May 2011:5160

Qualitative Problem Solving & Decision Making Tools [PowerPoint Slides] Retrieved from
https://quinnipiac.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?
course_id=_51135_1&content_id=_1835534_1

Russo & Schoemaker, Winning Decisions: Getting It Right the First Time. New York, Fireside. 2002.