2. They stated that the major family issues in this case was the lack of succession planning, a reliance on Robbins and family members keeping a cluster within the company’s job positions.
3. They stated that the major business issues in this case were the lack of cash flow, office management and company entering a niche market.
4. Their recommendations for the family issues were Joyce should have spoke to Lewis before removing him since he had worked at the company for so many years. Family ties should try to be kept separately when judging a person’s ability to manage a business. They believe Lewis should be brought back to the company to secure the credit lines with the banks.
5. Their recommendations for the business issues were to bring Lewis back to increase the cash flow, hire a manager to take care of management and to regain their position in the previous market.
6. During the debate, the yellow team argued to bring Lewis back to the firm to secure credit lines since the banks know and trust him.
7. They argued that since Robbins wasn’t ready to be president, the family members at the top should be limited.
8. In terms of succession plan, there should have been a succession in place if not Joyce will not have had to make the decision she made, it would have been made before he died. So she gave into firing Harris.
9.
10. They stated that the major family issues were that Joyce sided with the decision of the family members, the presence of non-family members in the business created tension amongst family members, the reduction of credit of the company which was caused from the fact that Harris was not a part of the family.
11. They stated that the major business issues were from management, promotional efforts of employees and the lack of systematic planning.
12. Their recommendations for the family issues that Joyce could advice David and Dave because of her experience, boundaries to be set for non-family members and Lewis should have not been removed.
13.
14.
15. The report included data from the case study to support their issues and recommendations.
16. They stated the firm’s business issues were cash flow problems (too dependent on Harris), no fixed strategy or firm culture, all three top positions filled with family.
17. They stated the firm’s family issues were that David got too much importance and would rely on Joyce after making wrong decisions, no succession plan and too many family members involved.
18. They recommended that for the business issues they should reduce insurance dependency, increase cash flow and establish a clear corporate profile.
19. They recommended for the family issues they should have meetings with executive board, Lewis should be brought back and family members can be shareholders and start from ordinary positions, making career growth.
20. During the debate, the blue team argued that the top three members should get rid of family members from top positions.
21. In terms of credit, they argued that they should use family to restore credit lines, could be family with another bank.
22. In terms of continuity of corporate practices, they argued that it is still relevant but their needs to be a balance.
23.
24. Lead team left some of the debate topics hanging and did not formally conclude on the better argument.
34. Some of the group got the chance to speak whether presenting or answering questions. Questions from the board were answered well. The group was also very active in debate and clearing up confusion in ideas.
35. The lead team decided that the yellow team captured the essential ideas of the case study in both in the report and debate.
40. Overall they handled questions well but in certain instances could have qualified responses better with data and justification as they did in the report.
41. In general, all groups’ members were involved in the debate to discuss ideas.
![LEAD TEAM REPORT<br />MICA: AAA Construction Company<br />Gold Team<br />Table of Contents<br />Executive Summary………………………………………………………………….3<br />MICA Debate Format………………………………………………………………..4<br />Instructions…………………………………………………………………………...5<br />Analysis of Group reports……………………………………………………………6<br />Yellow Team…………………………………………………………………………6<br />Green Team………………………………………………………………………….7<br />Blue Team……………………………………………………………………………8<br />Feedback to the Lead Team………………………………………………………….9<br />About the Lead Team Process……………………………………………………….9<br />Post-Debate Report………………………………………………………………….10<br />Suggestions for next Lead Team……………………………………………………11<br />Executive Summary<br />This report contains the pre-debate and post-debate evaluation of the MICA session held on the 9th of March 2010.<br />The first section is the debate format justification. As the lead team we decided a roundtable discussion will stimulate participation and highlight the main arguments of the case. As a team we also decided the lead team will present the main issues and recommendations of the individual teams, instead of having each team present their issues and recommendations. This was to have the main focus on the debate rather than presentations. These instructions on how the debate would be conducted will be shown in this report. The instructions were emailed to the groups prior to the debate. <br />The second section contains the pre-debate analysis of the individual team reports. All reports were detailed showing issues and recommendations to each issue.<br />The third section is the post debate analysis. Finally, the MICA process is analysed. Both positive points and suggested improvements of the process are given by other teams and Ed. <br />. <br />MICA DEBATE FORMAT<br />Justification<br />The format for the debate was chosen based on the case study, to create a boardroom-like atmosphere. Debate questions were used to stimulate discussion between the teams. <br />We decide to slightly change the format of the MICA. The pervious teams had other teams present their issues and recommendation but we felt that by the time teams were done there wasn’t much time left for the debate, and ended up being rushed. We decided to review the different team issues and recommendations, under our time constraints and head straight into the debate. <br />INSTRUCTIONS<br />The following instructions are to be e-mailed out to the debate participants before the debate to allow them to familiarise themselves with it. <br />Debate Format for Tuesday, 9th of March, 2010<br />1. Ice breaker<br /> <br />2. Report Presentation<br /> <br />After the Ice Breaker our group (Gold team) will present each team's issues within a short summary. <br />3. Debate:<br />After report presentation, we have selected issues and recommendations from your reports and several extra issues from the case study that will be discussed in the debate that will last for 20 minutes. Every team member will participate in the debate so be prepared.<br />Two members from the Lead Team will be making notes of the questions and answers in order to prepare the final report. The remaining two members will be in charge of monitoring the presentations and the debate.<br />Feedback:<br />At the end of the session, our team members will provide a brief report on participation, points made and the quality of the debate.<br />The debate was designed with the idea of focusing on the major issues and recommendations of the case study. We decided to highlight the conflicting ideas of the different teams and use this as the basis of the debate questions. <br />The lead team will present the major issues and recommendations of the teams. After this, the debate issues will be highlighted and the debate will proceed. <br />Teams<br />Yellow Team: Shawan, Pawan, Maximilian, Daniella, Xenia and Dimitrios<br />Green Team: Shaloo, Sofia, Karan and Eleonora <br />Blue Team: Ali, Djalal, Galina, Haithem<br />ANALYSIS OF GROUP REPORTS<br />YELLOW TEAM<br /> <br />Strengths:<br />,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/micareportgoldteam-100323134828-phpapp01/85/Mica-report-gold-team-1-320.jpg)
