Simulation scenario for Apr 3rd
The organization IS simulation is about using technology in performance management and issues regarding information security management. In a multinational trade company (IT-based solutions, network consultancy, and programming) with three branches in Asia (Hong Kong), Africa (Nigeria), and Europe (Sweden), the CEO and upper-level executives (in HQ and branches) have utilized an electronic tracking and monitoring system and software to ensure that employees (service providers, IT staff, programmers,…) are working when and how they should be and to block access to visiting certain websites. They intended to use this system to improve their employees’ productivity, measure work quality, beat deadlines, and make sure that their employees do not share sensitive data and codes with other competitors.
The technology for Performance and Security Management: The system includes hand and fingerprint recognition systems, global positioning systems (GPS) installed in the companies’ vehicles, surveillance cameras in each branch, and systems that can track employees using the company’s cell phones and handheld computers. The HQ of the company is located in Australia (Melbourne), and the CEO and the branch managers have access to the monitoring system.
The management team believed that they could improve the branches’ productivity using the monitoring system, which was very costly for the company to be implemented across the branches. The company deployed the monitoring system in all the branches in 2 months. In the first month of applying the system, everything was Ok!… After that, the problems have just begun as follows:
- The behavior of employees working in the African branch changed. Their absenteeism rate decreased, and their productivity declined too. They were in front of their computers all the time, but the results got worse eventually. They became very stressed and scared in the workplace. It seems something went wrong there!
- The monitoring system was hacked in the Asian branch. The virus, which was called “stare” was produced and destroyed the system. The HQ and top managers working in Hong Kong even couldn’t check the employees in the Hong Kong branch, and all they could see was: “Don’t stare at me like this!” that was displayed by the virus on their monitoring system’s screen … They also doubted whether the other branches could be monitored from Hong Kong. They were not entirely sure who hacked the system and why. The employees in Hong Kong didn’t take the blame for generating the virus.
- In Sweden’s branch, everything seemed all right! The employees of the European branch were still working as before. They were very relaxed, and they worked as if there was no monitoring system at all. Most of them were also very interested in watching live sports events, movies, and talk shows, even in the morning and evening times when they were in the workplace. Whenever possible, they watched live basketball, tennis, or other matches at work. The results showed that their absenteeism rate increased more than before, and they made use of corporate computers or vehicles, even for their personal purposes. Nevertheless, their productivity level didn’t decline, and it was still high.
What to do?
- The CEO has invited some representatives (some managers and employees) from each branch to Australia to solve the problems. In the meeting, the management team should support the system adoption, explain the primary rationale behind the implementation, describe the benefits of using the system for the company and employees, and emphasize the monitoring system’s usage to manage security and improve productivity.
- Each branch should thoroughly explain the issue and elaborate on the risks they experienced with the system in the meeting.
- Each branch also needs to offer some possible solutions/suggestions on how to manage the system.
- HQ managers should listen to each group’s explanations and feedback to analyze the overall situation.
- After the meeting, the company should reach an agreement and decide if they want to continue the system as before or if they want to have some adjustments or modifications.
- For instance, a further training program may be required. Or they may want to modify the system use-policy statement…
- In the simulation, we have a group of observers that serve as a judge, and they can interrupt the discussions and give their comments on the things happening among the other groups whenever required.
Group 1 plays the role of the judge.
Group 3 plays the role of the employees from Africa.
Group 4 plays the role of employees from Hong Kong.
Group 6 plays the role of employees from Sweden.
Groups 2+5 play the role of HQ management in Australia.
AND THIS WHAT YOU TO DO:
Participation in the simulation
Each student needs to submit an individual report with (at least) three paragraphs for the individual grades. In your individual report, please include the following items:
1. Overall, what have you learned from this group activity? It can be theoretical or practical (or both) implications of this activity. For example, explain the take-away points, and describe how you would use what you have learned from this group activity in real similar scenarios? How can you put these points into practice? (50 points)
2. If you were a manager or leader (with power and financial resources) of a large multicultural company (for example, with different branches around the world), what change(s) would you pursue as your most important priority to improve the security safeguards and reduce privacy concerns in your company? (25 points)
3. Compose a tweet about this activity or write about what you have found very exciting (or informative) in this activity on Instagram. A real post (i.e., a screenshot of your post) is recommended if you have a Twitter or Instagram account. Please use three hashtags in your post. Please share your tweet or Instagram post in this report. (25 points)
- Some important points:
- To get the full points, you need to actively participate in the discussions, problem-solving, and decision-making during the consultation session.
- Both the quality (such as accuracy) and quantity (at least one paragraph for each question) of each student’s report will be graded.
- Active individual participation based on a sound, complete, and innovative report = (50%)
- Important note: No show-up in the group activity in class means 10% deduction from the individual grade.