PISCO MODEL PISCO PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL ( P roblem, I nput, S olution, C hoice,
ID: 387610 • Letter: P
Question
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.
Explanation / Answer
Section A:
1) The case is about a dillema faced by cheif legal officer a drug making multinational company which is very strong at ethics and morals. He has encountered a very extraordinary distribbution deal involving his company, an ngo and a distributor of Bosnia where the distributor has been given huge amount of cash to deliver the medicines kits in deep remote war zone areas of bosnia. Keeping his side clear from the ethical concern the dealer says that the amount is used to clear the way on roads often blocked by local militia and in case no such cash is payed to them the drviers get shot. The cheif is satisfied with the claim yet is not sure whether to file a report about it or not.
2) The problem statemnet is :
Should the chief legal officer, Alistair, file a separate file reporting the unorthodox case of giving huge commission to Romanian distributor tfor supplying kits in deep war zone areas of Bosnia under a contract with a relief organization , to have more investigation in the matter on basis of ethical grounds?
Section B:
1) Various facts involved in the case that would be helpful in resolving the case include -
i) Everone outside the contract has pointed towards the case of Bosnia giving soome hint of unethical practices.
ii) Executive has cleared his stand stating the reaon for which such huge commisiion was give.
iii) The distributor convey the same what the exceutive is saying.
iii) No flowback of cash is seen from distributor to the executive which could make matter sounds unethical.
iv) The deal of commission is very extraoridnary.
v) It is not known whether the relief organization knows about the commission or not.
vi) No such reporting was about the commission to the office prior making the deal.
vii) Distribution of kits have already been met.
Section C:
1) The following three solutions can be considered -
i) Filing a report disclosing the hwole matter before the board and letting further investigation done in the matter.
ii) Leaving the matter disclosed and closing it without letting anyone know.
iii) Arranging a meeting with the relief organization, distributor and the exceutive to have further clearance personally and then filing the report if something found unethical or immoral.
2) Option i) strength - this would let the investigation formal, clear and concrete giving good outcomes. Weaknesses - If the matter is actually not unethical it could lend the executive in big trouble and may loose the relation with the relief organization as well.
option ii) Strength - give exceutive confidence about making decisions on his own and also giving him sense of belongingness. Will be cutting cost of doing investigation if there would be no such unethical practice. Weknesse - It may leave the culprit, if any, leave; it may make the image rampaged of the company infrobt of those who are suspicious about the deal.
option iii) Strength - it will make further clearnace and then give more lead to a specific decision.
weakness- it is informal, the officer may not be authorized to conduct such meetings and could be liabke to report only.
Section D;
The first options wekaness weigh more than its strength. The loss that the company could incur if the case was clear woud be huge not in finnacial terms but in non financial terms as well. The second option is the weakest option it could make the question mark on the image of organization to be strict on ethical grounds by leaving the case without further investigation.
The third option seems most feasible and rational. As it has ability to include strengths of both options and avoiding weaknesses of other two options. The concersn raised can be clarified through the meeting of the cheif an dof those who were giving hints towrads Bosina deal. It will not lend the exceutive in great deal if the case is clear .It will not make the relation woth the relif organization sore.
Hence the best option that could be chosen by the cheif would be to
Arranging a meeting with the relief organization, distributor and the exceutive to have further clearance personally and then filing the report if something found unethical or immoral.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.