*BRAINSTORMING ASSIGNMENT FOR WEEK 4: *
*MDQ STEP ONE: DECISION STATEMENT*
In week 4, *Pacific Palm Oil Company (PPO)* and the production plantation manager (You) will begin the process of making a decision, using the MDQ decision making model. The purpose of Week 4’s Brainstorming Discussions is to discuss step one of the MDQ model, possible decision statements you come up with to be discredited through brainstorming, validate and support the correct decision statement for the Project, and to become familiar with PPO’s complex decision using the model.
FOLLOW the directions step by step.
1. By* TUESDAY*, complete the following:
– Discuss the *triggers* or opportunity pushing PPO to make a decision. – Identify the *goal* the production plantation manager wants the decision to achieve for PPO. (Later on in the model, PPO will create specific objectives it wishes to accomplish in the final decision) – Create at least *TWO possible decision statements *for PPO. The course material explains that the more accurate PPO is in defining the decision statement, the happier the company will be with the final choice they make. Why is this so? Because the alternatives, objectives and people concerned in the scenario are more likely to be considered in the decision alternative that is chosen. If the decision statement is unclear, the less likely the alternatives, objectives, and people will be considered in the decision choice, which means the greater probability that PPO will not be satisfied with the final chosen alternative. – Examine the following decision statement, which is the one you will be using for the MDQ model and case study:
* In responding to CAPO’s attacks, how will PPO keep their customers and continue to make money?*
– Discuss the validity of this decision statement. Why is this the correct decision statement for PPO? Why are the other possible decision statements you initially came up with incorrect? Defend and support your discussion. Your logic and argument must be clear and based on the MDQ model as well as the case study facts. If it is not supportable from the facts, it is not considered logical.