Running head: CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
Case Analysis: Craig Gregersen
Joseph Wiles
Purdue University
EDCI
67200
Dr. Watson
October 26, 2013
1
CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
2
Case Analysis: Craig Gregersen
Key Stakeholders
Craig Gregersen
Primary Concerns



Stan Neuhaus




Louise Masoff



Richard Mull





Electron
Corporation
Engineers
Sales/Marketing
Customers









Instructional designer and consultant extensive legal background.
Hired by Electron Corporation to develop product accountability
training for all Electron Corporation’s personnel.
Craig is apprehension with developing training because stakeholder
disparities are likely to result in ineffective training.
Senior Design Engineer and the chair for the Safety Steering
Committee at Electron.
troubled by product safety and excellence
views the product liability issue as communication problems rather
than lack of training
Believes company needs a methodical nationwide employee policy
directing employees on how to handle specific product liability
matters
Training project manager
Charged with delivering training to help Electron’s staff incorporate
this information into their job duties.
Instructs Craig to consult with the legal department on every step of
the process.
Is intimidated by legal department and avoids conflict.
Head of Electron’s legal department.
Believes his department should be the ones handling the training.
Believes common method to product liability training focuses on
central legal facts (Dundis, 2007).
Concerned with confidentiality, so refuses to share Electron’s legal
documents.
Product legal issues affecting organization’s bottom line.
Concerned with employees taking product liability training serious
to reduce the impact on the success of the corporation.
Desire to know chain of command for reporting liability issues.
Concerned about product safety
Want to produce high-quality equipment without legal issues.
Concerned with problems that the equipment may cause.
Concerned with how to handle Electron merchandise recalls.
Want to know how to handle specific customer complaint issues.
Concerned with the quality and safety of Electron’s products.
CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
Key Design
Challenges




3
Accomplishment of the analysis stage to amass ample data, subject
matter, and knowledge framework to advance to the design stage.
Craig must pinpoint the extent of the training while delving further
into the learner analysis stage.
Craig must bring stakeholders to a commonality of objectives and
direction while considering the diversity of all Electron personnel
and timeline brevity.
Brevity of timeline is undoubtedly not going to permit adequate
time to effectively meet Electron’s desires and yield high-quality
training for the employees.
Understanding the Case Problem
Understanding the case problem is important, so the International Society for
Performance Improvement (ISPI) Code of Ethics shows that Craig has the commitment to
incorporate the organizations desires, limitations, and apprehensions in formulating a resolution
in the company’s best interests. He is charged with amalgamating the desires of all the
stakeholders to develop a winning resolution that embraces everyone’s concerns (2002, p. 2). As
an instructional designer, Craig is ethically obligated to help stakeholders understand the
importance of working together to achieve the common good. By taking the time to be
accountable for the project design and process analysis, Craig is meeting the ISPI Codes of
Ethics (2002, p. 3). If Craig does not get the stakeholders to embrace these things, he will be
unsuccessful in advancing to the development stage; however, the final decisions must be
determined and gain consensus by all the stakeholders.
In order to understand Craig’s dilemma, Frisque, Lin, & Kolb (2004) specifically
delineates the various kinds of ethics options that leverage handbooks for strategies, concentrate
training on communications of organizational philosophies, emphasize management buy-in, and
assimilate training with administrative objectives. This would arm Craig with data to
CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
4
communicate with the Electron Stakeholders to guide debates on the analysis phase and route of
training.
Solutions & Recommendations for Craig
Pros
Cons
Pros
Cons
Recommendation # 1
 Meet with Louise, Stan, and Richard in a team situation.
 Go over training project’s existing status along with contributions from
stakeholders, and the limitations he is facing.
 Request an extension from Louise to accommodate a supplementary
assessment, build stakeholder unanimity, and delay training subsequent to the
conclusion of the analysis stage.
 Allow for consideration of key elements such as employee diversity,
clarification of objectives, scope, and enhance stakeholder dialogue.
 Deliver outcomes essential to Electron (Code of Ethics, 2002, p.1) once
stakeholders have reached consensus.
 Craig could act as the team’s moderator or facilitator.
 Craig could spark a beneficial interchange among the team.
 Get the team to connect and collaborate toward resolution amongst themselves
and other stakeholders
 Could enhance ineffective communication, get off track, and lead to further
conflict
 Louise refuses to be part of the meeting to avoid conflict.
 Timeline constraints may be inflexible.
 Louise may become annoyed.
 Louise may not consider the appeal creating more glitches for Craig.
Recommendation # 2
 Consider consensus of team on first recommendation.
 Consider if accommodations cannot be granted.
 Consider what this means in terms of concerns for Craig.
 Craig may need to civilly turn down the appointment due to unknown direction
wanted by stakeholders.
 Consider ISPI Code of Ethics (2002), PI should be fixated on the outcomes and
effects of those outcomes on behalf of his/her client (p. 2).
 Removes himself from ethical ISPI dilemma.
 Allow Electron to bring in new consultant and have the least effect on the
company’s resources.
 If Craig advances with project in current status, he is likely to provide bad training.
 Craig’s reputation may suffer due to shoddy training exercised.
CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
5
Final Recommendation
Recommendation #1 is for Craig to meet with Louise, Stan, and Richard in a team
situation, which is most likely Craig’s finest step. Based on personal experience in my
workplace, it can be quite cumbersome to get all stakeholders on the same page. Most often,
stakeholders will operate in cliques behind other stakeholders’ backs only to enhance the
miscommunication issues. In order to bring everyone on board, a meeting was held with the
stakeholders to determine the objectives that everyone would be satisfied with. In my Pathways
to Personal and Professional Productivity course, many of the executive stakeholders felt that we
needed to make the course fun and not about training the students for the industry. This collided
with the objectives of the program directors who wanted the training for the students. Once we
understood the needs of all stakeholders, I was able to design a course that is fun and
enlightening with training for the Entertainment Industry that did not come across as too
forceful. Based on my experience, Craig needs to have a dialogue with the stakeholders,
articulate his apprehensions, recognize and settle contradictory data, and move Electron
stakeholders to establish the route to effectual outcomes. Gregersen should offer the leadership
and instructional design knowledge during this development. He needs to clarify the necessary
needs to accomplish his charges and create beneficial training and the motive for it. Craig must
present alternate answers and conceivable outcomes contingent upon the final decisions that the
stakeholders stipulate.
CASE ANALYSIS: CRAIG GREGERSEN
References
Code of ethics [PDF]. (2002). Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance
Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.ispi.org/uploadedFiles/ISPI_Site/About_ISPI/About/Code-of-Ethics.pdf
Ertmer, P.A., Quinn, J.A., & Glazewski, K.D. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in
instructional design (4th ed.). (pp. 204-208). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson PrenticeHall.
Frisque, D.A., Lin, H., & Kolb, J.A. (2004). Preparing professionals to face ethical challenges
in today’s workplace: Review of the literature, implications for PI, and a proposed
research agenda. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 17(2), 28-45 [PDF]. Retrieved
from https://content2.learntoday.info/purdue/EDCI67200_Fall_2012/Media/Frisque.pdf
6