case study assignment

Running Head : ACUSCAN CASE STUDY

Acuscan case study

Insert Name

Institution

Acuscan case study

Part One : Questions

Assumptions

a . Kelly-Assumes the project as too ambitious for the company considering staff shortage and the heavy workload on the existing labor force

b . Pat-There are people in the company not in full support of the project . Pat further assumes that projects can only succeed when outside programming companies are used . Pat is more optimistic than rest , maybe because he is the team leader

c . Cliff-Opinions that project can

succeed with even less budgetary allocation (2 /3 of the estimated sum

d . Chris-assumes that all departments and individuals would understand and support the project no matter the costs

Explaining Arguments

a . Cliff O 'Connor : Better management would reduce the cost of running the company and especially the especially the new project

b . Pat Lambert : As the project leader , Pat is rooting for the new product thus embarks on convincing colleagues on following suit

c . Kelly Thomas : As the head of programming , Kelly feels his department is being overburdened . He roots for postponing the project to allow for better planning

d . Chris Martinas : Chris argues that employees and other stakeholders understand importance of the project and would therefore make the necessary short

3 . Evaluate each argument listed above as sound or unsound and why Indicate whether they are emotional or logical in nature

Evaluations should comprise two to six sentences for each of the following

a . Cliff O 'Connor : This argument is sounder considering that it was coming from head of the company . Having such positive mentality provides guidance for other employees and department leaders to follow . However it would be a tough to convince the seemingly overstretched programming team . O 'Connor should therefore embark on approaching the team with regard to forming appositive working relationship

b . Pat Lambert : Lambert 's support of the project generates from being the lead manager . His arguments are therefore more informed . He is therefore better placed to improve organizational understanding . Only then can success be achieved in aligning stakeholder goals

c . Kelly Thomas : Kelly is the most difficult person to convince . He feels the team is more stretched and cannot allocate time for another project . Kelly 's arguments are unsound because he is not willing to negotiate with the others

d . Chris Martinas : Chris ' arguments are sound because he provides proper reasoning for the project . His argument on all stakeholders to support the project is also sound , as it is the source of inspiration to the others . Maybe Kelly , the programming head would follow into Chris supportive arguments

4 . Describe specific fallacious arguments , and identify the people who hold them

For full credit , provide AT MINIMUM four to six fallacious arguments

Fallacious problems

Kelly 's argument that the programming department can hardly allocate time for another project

Chris ' view that employees and employees agree with the decisions made which is out rightly fallacious - some employees could have reservations

Pat 's claim that the project can be done...