The Sugar Substitute Research Decision

You are the head of research and development (R&D) for a major beer company. While working on a new beer product, one of the scientists in your unit seems to have tentatively identified a new chemical compound that has few calories but tastes closer to sugar than current sugar substitutes. The company has no foreseeable need for this product, but it could be patented and licensed to manufacturers in the food industry.

The sugar substitute discovery is in its preliminary stages and would require considerable time and resources before it would be commercially viable. This means that it would necessarily take some resources away from other projects in the lab. The sugar substitute project is beyond your technical expertise, but some of the R&D lab researchers are familiar with that field of chemistry. As with most forms of research, it is difficult to determine the amount of research required to further identify and perfect the sugar substitute.

You do not know how much demand is expected for this product. Your department has a decision process for funding projects that are behind schedule. However, there are no rules or precedents about funding projects that would be licensed but not used by the organization.

The company's R&D budget is limited, and other scientists in your work group have recently complained that they need more resources and financial support to get their projects completed. Some of these other R&D projects hold promise for future beer sales.

You believe that most researchers in the R&D unit are committed to achieving the company's interests. trying to figure out a better problem identification on the case study while generating more choices for a stronger commitment to the decision.

with a stronger commitment to the decision? with better problem identification. to choose better choices for a decision structure

Answer:

· No involvement You make the decision alone without any participation from subordinates.

· Low involvement. You ask one or more subordinates for information relating to the problem, but you don't ask for their recommendations and might not mention the problem to them.

· Medium involvement You describe the problem to one or more subordinates (alone or in a meeting) and ask for any relevant information as well as their recommendations on the issue. However, you make the final decision, which might or might not reflect their advice.

· High involvement You describe the problem to subordinates. They discuss the matter, identify a solution without your involvement (unless they invite your ideas), and implement that solution. You have agreed to support their decision.

Most teams will likely identify the 'medium involvement' category, although some tend to suggest high involvement. The answer to the next question explains why medium involvement is probably best here.

Step-by-step explanation

Decision structure:

This decision has low structure. The incident says that there is a decision process for funding projects behind schedule, but there are no rules or precedents about funding projects that would be licensed but not used by the organization. Consequently, some level of involvement may be valuable.

Source of decision knowledge:

The incident clearly says that the sugar substitute project is beyond your technical expertise and that it is difficult to determine the amount of research required. Scientists have information unavailable to the leader, but they would not have sufficient information to make the decision alone.

Overall, this suggests that some involvement (probably at least a medium level) is desirable.

Decision commitment. This might be debatable, but most employees know that funding decisions are ultimately in the hands of executives who must take responsibility for those decisions. Also, it sounds like past funding decisions are made by the leader, not employees (mainly due to conflict problems described below).

Moreover, but employees don't implement anything as a result of this decision, so there is probably minimal adverse effect of low commitment. Risk of conflict. There are two dimensions of this contingency.

First, with respect to goal compatibility between employees and the company, the incident says that you believe that most researchers in the R&D unit are committed to ensuring company's interests are achieved.

Second, it is almost certainly true that conflict will occur among employees. This is a win-lose situation where funding one project reduces or eliminates funding on other projects. Overall, the conflict among employee discourages high involvement, but will allow a medium level of involvement.