MI6273: Read The Case That You Have Chosen And Diagnose The Problem In The Case: Actionable Insights Case Study, TCD, Ireland

We recommend you start working on this individual assignment after Session 2 of the class: after we discuss your Group Project Part 1, you can work on Section 1 of this individual assignment. Similarly, after Session 3, as we discuss your Group Project Part 2, you can work on Section 2 of this assignment. This will help you to apply directly your learnings from relevant class sessions and to spread the work on this assignment throughout the semester.

SECTION: DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION

Read the case that you have chosen and diagnose the problem in the case and the solutions offered, using the frameworks and question checklists discussed during Session 1 (the checklists are also in Section 2.9 of the module textbook, pp. 43-48, PICOC is on p.25). In your analysis, consider also the experts’ comments that are offered by HBR after the text of the case. Consider these comments as evidence from practitioners. The following questions will guide you in your analysis.

Step 1.1: Clarity of the problem:

• What is the problem? What are its’ causes and organizational consequences? What is the “logic” / causal model behind the problem? If some elements of the problem/model are not clear, please indicate this and explain.

• What are the assumptions behind the problem statement? Note that these assumptions may differ between different characters in the case, as well as between different practitioners commenting on it. If that’s the case, clarify this.

• What is the PICOC for the problem?

• What types of evidence were used by the characters in the case to diagnose a problem? What types of evidence were not used (i.e., not mentioned, if any)?

• Are these sources/types of evidence trustworthy and relevant?

• Does this evidence support the problem statement/causal model presented in the case?

Step 1.3: Clarity of the solution

• What is the solution offered? What is the “logic” / causal model behind the solution? If some elements of the solution/model are not clear, please indicate this and explain.

• Do we know the costs and benefits of this solution?

• Were multiple options of the solution considered in the case?

Step 1.4: Evidence for the solution

• What types of evidence were used by the characters in the case or by commenting experts to support the solution? What types of evidence were not used/not mentioned?

• Are these sources/types of evidence trustworthy and relevant?

• Does this evidence support the solution presented in the case?

Step 1.5: Needs for additional evidence

• Based on the analysis above, identify two key pieces of evidence (i.e., related to the logic model underlying the problem or the solution) that are still missing and that the decision-makers could gather to make a better decision.

a) One piece of evidence needs to come from existing empirical evidence from the scientific literature. For example, if the missing evidence you identified concerns the performance effects of remote working, the research question could be: How does remote working affect individual work performance?

b) The other piece of evidence needs to be missing empirical evidence from the organization or the stakeholders that require the collection of ‘new’ primary data (i.e., not secondary data). For example, if the missing evidence you identified concerns the job satisfaction differences (if any) between work-from-office and work-from-home employees in your organization, the research question could be: What are the differences in job satisfaction between employees that work from home and that work from the office?