Introduction
Contents
Jump to Scenarios:
Current Users:
guest (web)
guest (web)
guest (web)
Screen Shots
The BRIDGE Scenarios
4. Business Scenarios
There are three scenarios in this section:- Scenario 4A: Corporate Governance
- Scenario 4B: Decision meeting with remote participants (TBD)
- Scenario 4C: One of Lu's project managements scenarios... (TBD)
Scenario 4A: Corporate Governance
( Web Editor | Full Editor )Change Record (Please date and initial)
- 2002.10.18 Initial posting of scenario. (cmr)
Scenario:
Anna Catcher is on the board of directors for Rip-On, a large telecommunications consortium. As a member of the financial committee of the board, she is deep in the company's financial system looking at some recent transactions. What she sees concerns her, and she thinks there may be some fraudulent activities, perhaps even at executive levels. She takes several screen shots of what she is looking at and pastes them into a private copy of a BRIDGE-enabled collaboration program. She uses the secure internal e-mail system to notify the other two members of the financial committee, Fred Smiley and Art Frougn. The e-mail contains a link to the collaboration posting. She suggests they each look over her notations, respond via e-mail today, and set aside time in the morning for an on-line collaboration.
Late in the day, Anna sees return e-mails from Fred and Art. Each includes a link to a response on the collaboration program. She follows Fred's link and sees his added notations to Anna's screen shots. Fred clearly understands the situation, but poses four alternative explanations. Art, on the other hand made only one new notation and said he barely had time to look it over. His notation indicated he didn't follow Anna's reasoning at one point.
The next day all three were on-line and linked to Anna's original postings. They were using voice over Internet to discuss the matter. Since Anna had included Fred's and Art's responses into the tool set for the collaborative tool, she suggested they go to Art's response and try to deal with his concern. Anna went through the process verbally and even added some new highlights. Art was still skeptical. Fred then added two arrows to Anna's notations showing a clear relationship between three entities. Art was convinced. Next they all switched to Fred's response containing the alternative explanations. Anna copied the four descriptions, pasted into an outline tool, and made the tool available for all to use. For the next thirty minutes they outlined supporting evidence for each of Art's four alternatives and Anna's base scenario. They concluded that Anna was probably right.
By taking parts of Anna's original posting, Fred's alternatives, and the work they did on the outline, they created a new posting that convincingly outlined the case that there was some fraudulent activity at the assistant vice-president level. After several changes from each member they thought they were ready to forward the cased to the chairman of the board. Since Fred was the in charge of the board's financial committee he sent an email to the chairman suggesting they get together on-line after lunch for a most important discussion. Since Fred wanted to make the case verbally, he did not send a link to the committee's presentation, electing instead to forward the link when he and the chairman were both on line.
Return to Business Scenarios
Return to Contents
Scenario 4B: Decision meeting with remote participants (TBD)
( Web Editor | Full Editor )Change Record (Please date and initial)
- 2002.10.18 Initial posting of scenario. (cmr)
Scenario:
Enter text here.
Return to Business Scenarios
Return to Contents
Scenario 4C: One of Lu's project managements scenarios... (TBD)
( Web Editor | Full Editor )Change Record (Please date and initial)
- 2002.10.18 Initial posting of scenario. (cmr)
Scenario:
Enter text here.
Return to Business Scenarios
Return to Contents