Reference no: EM132214256

PISCO MODEL

PISCO PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL

(Problem, Input, Solution, Choice, Operation)

PISCO is adapted from: DeBono, Edward (1985). Six thinking hats. New York; Little, Brown and Company.

After carefully reading the “case” provided below, read through the PISCO Problem Solving Model and use this model to write your case analysis:

Problem (Section 1):

1. The Problem Statement is short and to the point. Give the reader some background information (setting and broad nature of the issue).

2. Develop a clear and concise problem statement for which you are seeking resolution. Do not include a lot of facts in this section;the facts belong in the Input Section.

Input (Section 2):

1. What are the facts that might have a bearing on this problem (use research to support your work here!)? . Include at least 3 outside sources (course text (required) and two others, including journal articles) on one or more of the topics (e.g. bribery, humanitarian aid) raised in the case study. Also, use of popular (non-scholarly) sources should be limited or additional (beyond the 3 required).

2. Include all the facts (restate the facts in your own words from thecase study) that are needed to solve your problem.

Solution (Section 3):

1. Develop two or three of the best solutions you can imagine for this problem/issue. What are the two or three things that would make this situation better?

2. List the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT Analysis) of each of the three solutions proposed.

3. Provide a rationale for each of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats listed. You may concepts from the text or independent research for support. However, each part of each SWOT should be sufficiently discussed.

Choice (Section 4):

1. Write a clear statement that explains provides sufficient rationale for why this is the best solution. In other words, which is the best of the solutions you outlined and why. The Choice statement should be short, no more than 2 to 3 sentences.

2. In this case, the Choice is Alistair’s so don’t inflict your opinionanywhere in the document by saying, “I think,” or “ I choose,” or anything with an “I” or “me.” The choice would be Alistair’s choice and therefore should be written in those terms. The justification has already been made and it does not need to be repeated in this section.

Operation (Section 5):

1. Write an operational goal for the choice you selected.

2. Develop an action plan with at least 4 to 6 “action” steps. What are the next steps to be taken after a decision is made.

3. CASE

Honor The Cost of Philanthropy

As chief legal officer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, Alistair has been asked by his board of directors to look into rumors of price-fixing in the firm's European offices. His board has a very strong ethics policy, and is especially wary of price-fixing, bribery, kickbacks, and other unethical activities that can plague overseas operations.

After several months of detailed interviews in Europe, Alistair satisfies himself that the rumors are groundless. "There's no issue here," he heard several managers say. “But,” added one such manager, "if you really want something to investigate, look into the Bosnia contract."

Over the months, Alistair keeps hearing about "the Bosnia contract." So when he finishes his report on the price-fixing rumors, he decides to satisfy his curiosity on this matter. The contract, he discovers, is ordinary in almost every respect: A major relief organization has contracted with his company to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-torn regions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts with charitable organizations, it contains hardly any profit for his firm.

What he finds strange, however, is the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Romanian distributor to deliver the kits deep into Bosnia. Seeking out the executive in his own firm who negotiated the contract, he has one question in mind: Is this a bribe?

“Yes and no,” says the executive. According to the Romanian distributor, the backs of the delivery trucks are loaded with the kits—and the glove compartments are stuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers are stopped at roadblocks set up by local militia units operating all across Bosnia, they can pay whatever is demanded and continue their journey. “In the past,” he notes, “drivers without cash have been taken from their trucks and shot. If the kits are to be delivered, this is the cost of doing business.”

Alistair feels sure that none of the money has flowed back to the executive, whose only motive is to get the kits delivered. And by this time, the deliveries have already been made. Yet Alistair still faces a dilemma. Should he draft a separate report to the board on this most unorthodox contract—possibly causing great harm to the executive who negotiated it or embarrassment to the relief organization, which is aware of the commission? Or should he keep silent?

What should Alistair do?

Alistair, who has to decide whether to draft a report to the board about the issue at hand or keep silent. What I want you to learn from the exercise is how to set up the case in the PISCO model form. The final decision is not important for this case as far as a grade.