EIS simulation,

1. TEAM 3 :
CHEAKA Sawdatou
CORONAS Aurélia
DAIF Loubna
BOUZIANE Amine
DUCOURANT Christophe JOSE PIETRI 1

2. Plan
 Strategy
 Tactics
 Team dynamics
 Leadership-Followership
 Decision making
 Information
 Values
 Results
 What worked well for us
 What didn’t work so well
 Evolution
 Role
 Conclusions
2

3. Strategy
We didn’t choose our
strategy immediately.
First, we took the
ownership of the game
in order to better
understand the rules Decision
making
Evaluation
and
adaptation
Interest
Collecting
information
3

4. Tactics
 Our first decisions were not efficient enough
 We started by informing people and collecting information
 It was important for us to define the kind of relationship
between employees, and to define the role of Ann Finkelbaum
 Our strategy was good until an unexpected event happened
(“loose Scotti”). Then we decided to focus on the top managers
by organizing meetings, collecting their viewpoint.
4

5. Team dynamics(1)
 Workgroup : each decision was approved by the
group after discussion.
 Sometimes we decided to take some risks to
improve the evolution of the project
5

6. Team dynamics(2)
During the game we faced 2 unexpected events.
 The first unexpected event happened because the
managers weren’t involved. In order to get back
managers attention, we decided to organize a meeting
with the management staff (SCOTTI).
The second unexpected event was that Ann
Finkelbaum joined the team with a new
solution, which was acclaimed by the hole group.
6

7. Leadership-Followership
 No leader has distinguished himself
 There is a mutual relationship established between
each member of the team which is really beneficial in
the effectiveness of the group. 7

8. Decision making
 As every member of the team is adding his
opinion, the decision making was more efficient.
 After discussion between ourselves, we have done
the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
each decision.
 During the game we realized the importance
of the time. This is why we were even more
vigilant in making our decision towards the
end of the game.
8

9. Information
 Most of information concern employees and
members of CEO
 These information are important for the
development of the strategy
For example, information concerning Ann, allowed
us to avoid the lobbying.
9

10. Values
To follow Leadership
Unique
To adapt
vision
To listen Success Objectives
10

11. Results
9 adopters
with Ann Finkelbaum
11

12. What worked well for us
 The first step was to contact all concerned members via e-
mails and to set up some face to face meetings. The
objective was to clarify the new process of the EIS project.
 We chose to go step by step and not to cut corners.
Considering Anne’s strong personality we noticed that
Lobbying would not be relevant for us because it would
create real conflicts.
12

13. What didn't work so well
 The beginning of our mission was quite difficult because
we didn’t see any positive reaction from people.
 Some actions taken were not efficient concerning managers
who usually didn’t have time.
 We focused a lot on a person who was very interested, and
by neglecting the others, they were less interested.
 Using pilot tests at the beginning was unsuccessful because
we were always on the stage : “awareness”.
13

14. The evolution
14

15. Role
 Time keeper : CORONAS Aurélia
 Our decisions were more relevant over the time
 Strategic : BOUZIANE Amine
 Study and qualify all the possibilities and actions to be
taken
 Brave actions : DAIF Loubna
 Take some risky an brave actions to progress
 Decision maker: DUCOURANT Christophe
 In case of conflict, he was the Judge
 Analyst /profiler : CHEAKA Sawdatou
 Analyze the impact of each action on specific people
15

16. Conclusion
 No matter the number of decisions, the most important
was to take good decisions at the right time
 Progress step by step
 Choose the right action at the right time (same action has
not the same impact in two different moments during the
process).
16