The Global Strategists Team Work Plan
Learning objectives Performance assessment Conflict management Assignment schedule
|
Name |
E-mail Address |
Phone Number |
|
Alicia Adams-Glover |
Home: 202- 722-9594 Work: 202-872-4418 |
|
|
Jenny Glenn |
Pager: 1-888-266-8097 |
|
|
Bill Kemp |
Home: 805-355-2763 Work: 805-355-0071 |
|
|
Nona Keith-Henson |
Home: 301- 583-9810 Cell: 240-832-0232 Work: 301- 497-9900 |
The Global Strategists' Team Goal:
The goal of the Global Strategists is to obtain a grade 90% or better for all assignments while gaining a new level of understanding on cultural, business, and economic differences throughout the world. We will strive to create a synergy only possible through acting as a cohesive team, actively contributing, participating and combining ideas that will result in new knowledge unattainable by an individual.
Behaviors:
The members of The Global Strategists will adhere to the following established team behaviors.
The Global Strategists’ team learning objectives are derived from the various individual goals and each member’s expectation of team success.
The Global Strategists team assessment process is
comprised of a rating system from 1 - 4. (1 = Excellent; 2 = Good; 3 =
Mediocre; 4 = Unsatistactory.) Each team member and the team as a whole are
given a score based on the established assessment guidelines for each
assignment. At the end of the course, the ratings on all four assignments are
averaged together to reach a final score for the team.
The team applied the following questions to evaluate our performance on each
assignment:
1.
Did the team member’s submissions adhere to both
the assessment guidelines and the specified instructions for format of
assignment?
2.
Did the team member actively participate and
contribute to all assignments?
3.
Did the team member communicate frequently and
effectively?
4.
Did the team member adhere to assigned
deadlines?
5.
Did the team member achieve the identified
learning objectives?
Week |
Team Assessment Criteria |
Comments |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||
|
Two |
1 |
1 |
1.25 |
1 |
2 |
Criteria
1: All team members felt that all
instructions and assignment guidelines were met Criteria
2: There was good team member dialog. All team members of the Global Strategist
participated and contributed according to individual responsibilities
established by the team. Everyone is
willing to lend an extra hand whenever needed. Criteria
3: Team members communicated effectively and
regularly. All opinions were heard
and considered. Response delays due
to time zone differences occasionally occurred. Criteria
4: All
team members felt that all deadlines specified in the Team work plan were
met. Criteria
5: Team
members worked hard to achieve learning objectives but fell short in some
areas. Professor feedback made clear
that more specificity was required in the team work plan. The team made
progress on learning objectives, but received only an 80% score |
|
Four |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Criteria
1: All team members felt that all guidelines
and assignment formats were met. Criteria 2: There were very good discussions among team members over
various issues. All team members
participated and contributed according to individual responsibilities established
by the team. Everyone is willing to
lend an extra hand whenever needed. Everyone
pitched-in where and whenever necessary to improve our team work plan,
website and reports, Criteria
3: Team members communicated effectively and
regularly. All opinions were heard
and considered. Discussion impacts
due to time zone differences between team members played a much smaller role
than week 2 Criteria
4: We had
some struggles meeting the assigned due dates. Interim deadlines were not met in all cases due to the pace of
the course, but final publishing deadlines were met. The team had to change the initial
submission due date back in order to accommodate the additional workload and
research needed for the week.
Overall, the team pulled together to complete the assignment on time. Criteria
5: Team
learning and understanding improved.
The team has not met all the learning objectives, but considerable
strides have been made and each member has improved from the previous team
assignment. Every team member gets
more from every assignment. A certain
synergy is forming. |
|
Eight |
1 |
2.5 |
1 |
2.75 |
1.25 |
Criteria 1: We have a good grasp of this aspect of the
work. We have mastered this part of
our work. The team adhered to week
8’s assignment guidelines and format Criteria 2: We had
difficulty providing timely feedback due to illness in two team members'
families. Despite, the obstacles
presented due to family sickness the team participated and contributed at a
level that did not comprise the overall team goal. Criteria 3: We do a good
job of using WT and email to stay coordinated, although email is our primary
form of communication. The team communicated very frequently and effectively
by making everyone aware of potential obstacles immediately. Criteria 4: Our team performance has fallen a little further
behind on each assignment. We may be in trouble with the back-to-back-to-back
pace of weeks 10 through 12 if we don't improve. Deadlines were missed badly in some cases due to
family sickness. Due to family sickness and the time constraints
associated, the team did not meet all of the assigned deadlines; however,
notices of missing deadlines were known immediately. Criteria 5:
I think we covered the material thoroughly and expanded our understanding of
Starbucks business operations. Team learning objectives were met. More attention to week 8's learning
objectives would have strengthened the overall team's performance. |
|
Ten |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eleven |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: The numbers shown under the team assessment criteria are the numeric average of all team-member’s individual scores. The comments are a compilation of all team member comments for each week. Duplicated comments are shown once.
If a problem arises within the team, we will observe the following guidelines before elevating the issue to our professors:
6.
Deal with the problem as a group, involving
everyone in reaching a consensus.
7.
Be open and honest, and feel comfortable enough
to discuss any and all issues however big or small at any time.
8.
In the event we do not reach a consensus, the
assignment coordinator will be the tiebreaker on decisions about the
assignment.
9.
If the team becomes deadlocked on an issue and
is unable to move forward, the OMBA 606 instructors will be contacted to
facilitate a group solution to the issue.
Assignment
Schedule:
Week 2 Week 4 Week 8
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 2
- March 9, 2003
Assignment Requirement: Team Work Plan, Team Web Page, Overview of Starbucks, Overview of Japan and Korea
Team Work Plan Coordinator: Alicia Adams-Glover
Report Coordinator: Nona Keith-Henson
Overview of Starbucks: Nona Keith-Henson
Subgroup 1 – Korea: Alicia Adams-Glover and Bill Kemp
Subgroup 2 – Japan: Jenny Glenn
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Team Work Plan and Team Web
Page Assignment Schedule |
Week 4 – March 23, 2003
Assignment Requirement: Individual report
Coordinator: Jenny Glenn
Subgroup 1 – Korea: Alicia Adams-Glover and Bill Kemp
Alicia: Product/service standards
Bill: Anti competitive practices
Subgroup 2 – Japan: Jenny Glenn and Nona Keith-Henson
Jenny: Product/service standards
Nona: Anti competitive practices
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Post draft of individual
reports – Thursday, March 20, 2003 10PM EST |
Week 8 – April 20, 2003
Assignment Requirement: Individual report
Coordinator: Bill Kemp
Subgroup 1 – Korea: Alicia Adams-Glover and Bill Kemp
Alicia: Economic infrastructure
Efficient and operative infrastructures are fundamental for economic development because it provides the means by which people and institutions thrive and progress. This report focuses on any impediments of South Korea’s economic infrastructure on the operations of Starbucks Coffee Korea. The report will address in part the following questions:
Does the availability of South Korea’s realty market assist or impede Starbucks Coffee Korea in expanding?
What if any impact does South Korea’s transportation system has on the operations of Starbucks Coffee Korea?
Does the South Korean banking institutions provide a means of support for Starbucks Coffee Korea?
Are there policies in place that contribute to the stability of South Korea’s labor force, that would hinder the operations of Starbucks Coffee Korea?
Bill: Financial markets
Pending
Subgroup 2 – Japan: Jenny Glenn and Nona Keith-Henson
Jenny: Economic infrastructure
Economic infrastructure creates the support system for the business activities carried out in a country. For Starbucks, the important components include import regulations, banking and currency stability, transportation, electrical services, the availability of appropriate retail space, and the integrity and enforcement of trademark and contract law. This paper looks at Japan’s economic infrastructure from both the traditional economic perspective and from the viewpoint of a globally competitive environment. The paper will address how Starbucks Coffee Japan should manage its investment in Japan over the next two years, and over the next five to ten year period.
Nona: Financial markets
Japan has one of the most important financial centers in the world, however, the country suffered a serious financial crisis in the 1990's and have since undergone major government reforms of their financial system and the subsequent 'Big Bang' to prevent deterioration. While providing an overview of the recent performance of Japan's financial markets, this report will focus on their monetary policy and regulatory framework, discuss both the money markets (short-term debt), trading in equities and securities and venture capital markets. This report will attempt to address how business risks could affect Starbucks Coffee International expansion strategy based on the current competitiveness of Japan's financial markets, the problems and the likely future developments of the country's financial system.
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Post draft of individual
reports – Thursday, April 17, 2003 10PM EST Feedback on all first drafts
- Friday, April 18, 2003 10PM EST Post revised drafts for
final review – Saturday, April 19, 2003 noon EST Post revised draft for final
review and comments – Sunday, April 20, 2003 noon EST Post final document to web page – Sunday, April 20, 2003 10PM EST |
Week
10 – May 4,
2003
Assignment Requirement: Individual report
Coordinator: Alicia Adams-Glover
Subgroup 1 – Korea: Alicia Adams-Glover and Bill Kemp
Alicia: Social infrastructure
The focus of this report is on the social infrastructure of South Korea.
It addresses any possible obstacles to the operations of Starbucks Coffee. The
report will provide the following information:
Bill: Business and workforce culture
My paper will be on The Business and Workforce Culture of South Korea and Its impact on Starbucks’ operations there. Topics that will be covered:
Subgroup 2 – Japan: Jenny Glenn and Nona Keith-Henson
Jenny: Social infrastructure
This individual report considers how of social infrastructure impedes or enables success for the Starbucks coffee house concept. Social infrastructure is the result of government policies integrated with the culture, relationships, abilities, and expectations of the Japanese people. Social infrastructure influences many aspects of Starbucks' approach to the market, including product mix, product pricing, store location and design, and advertising. Social infrastructure is dynamic, responding to religious, political, and economic events. The trends and issues for Japan's social infrastructure are assessed over the near term period of the next two years. The sources of possible pressures and adaptations in social infrastructure over the next five to ten years are also explored in terms of the implications for Starbucks business operations.
Nona: Business and workforce culture
Global expansion into the Japanese market was a major strategic undertaking for Starbucks Coffee International. A thorough understanding and analysis of their value system, work and business ethics was necessary to structure a workforce that established trust and respect for their culture, which Sazaby Inc. and Starbucks Coffee accomplished by combining their marketing skills and know-how to develop a new type of coffee sotre, offering 'new lifestyle concepts.' Identification of the potential ethical conflicts and pitfalls that could impede daily operations were also key in establishing trust to maximize their business opportunity for excellent results.
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Post draft of individual
reports – Thursday, May 1, 2003 10PM EST |
Week
11 – May 11,
2003
Assignment Requirement: Subgroup report on business risks of selected country
Coordinator: Bill Kemp
Executive Summary: Alicia Adams-Glover
Subgroup 1 – Korea: Alicia Adams-Glover and Bill Kemp
Subgroup issue summary
Business risk analysis
Subgroup 2 – Japan: Jenny Glenn and Nona Keith-Henson
Subgroup issue summary
Business risk analysis
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Initial team input -
Thursday, May 8, 2003 noon EST |
Week
12 – May 18,
2003
Assignment Requirement: End of seminar team report on business risks for Starbucks in Japan and Korea.
Coordinator: Nona Keith-Henson
Executive Summary:
Country recommendation: Alicia Adams-Glover
Economic discussion:
Learning goals evaluation: Alicia Adams-Glover
Team web page updates: Jenny Glenn
|
Initial team input –
Thursday, May 15, 2003 noon EST |