Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioners o

Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of director of evaluation in the Department of Human Services.

Fiona’s predicament had begun the day before, when the new commissioner, Fran Atkin, had called a meeting with Fiona and the deputy commissioner. The governor was in a difficult position: In his recent election campaign, he had made potentially conflicting campaign promises. He had promised to reduce taxes and had also promised to maintain existing health and social programs, while balancing the state budget.

The week before, a loud and lengthy meeting of the commissioners in the state government had resulted in a course of action intended to resolve the issue of conflicting election promises. Fran Atkin had been persuaded by the governor that she should meet with the senior staff in her department, and after the meeting, a major evaluation of the department’s programs would be announced. The evaluation would provide the governor with some post-election breathing space. But the evaluation results were predetermined—they would be used to justify program cuts. In sum, a “compassionate” but substantial reduction in the department’s social programs would be made to ensure the department’s contribution to a balanced budget.

As the new commissioner, Fran Atkin relied on her deputy commissioner, Elinor Ames. Elinor had been one of several deputies to continue on under the new administration and had been heavily committed to developing and implementing key programs in the department, under the previous administration. Her success in doing that had been a principal reason why she had been promoted to deputy commissioner.

On Wednesday, the day before the meeting with Fiona, Fran Atkin had met with Elinor Ames to explain the decision reached by the governor, downplaying the contentiousness of the discussion. Fran had acknowledged some discomfort with her position, but she believed her department now had a mandate. Proceeding with it was in the public’s interest.

Elinor was upset with the governor’s decision. She had fought hard over the years to build the programs in question. Now she was being told to dismantle her legacy—programs she believed in that made up a considerable part of her budget and person-year allocations.

In her meeting with Fiona on Friday afternoon, Elinor had filled Fiona in on the political rationale for the decision to cut human service programs. She also made clear what Fiona had suspected when they had met with the commissioner earlier that week—the outcomes of the evaluation were predetermined: They would show that key programs where substantial resources were tied up were not effective and would be used to justify cuts to the department’s programs.

Fiona was upset with the commissioner’s intended use of her branch. Elinor, watching Fiona’s reactions closely, had expressed some regret over the situation. After some hesitation, she suggested that she and Fiona could work on the evaluation together, “to ensure that it meets our needs and is done according to our standards.” After pausing once more, Elinor added, “Of course, Fiona, if you do not feel that the branch has the capabilities needed to undertake this project, we can contract it out. I know some good people in this area.”

Fiona was shown to the door and asked to think about it over the weekend.

Fiona Barnes took pride in her growing reputation as a competent and serious director of a good evaluation shop. Her people did good work that was viewed as being honest, and they prided themselves on being able to handle any work that came their way. Elinor Ames had appointed Fiona to the job, and now this.

Your Task

Analyze this case and offer a resolution to Fiona’s dilemma. Should Fiona undertake the evaluation project? Should she agree to have the work contracted out? Why? In responding to this case, consider the issues on two levels: (1) look at the issues taking into account Fiona’s personal situation and the “benefits and costs” of the options available to her and (2) look at the issues from an organizational standpoint, again weighing the “benefits and the costs.” Ultimately, you will have to decide how to weigh the benefits and costs from both Fiona’s and the department’s standpoints.

Solution

Fiona Barnes didn\'t believe good because the deputy commissioner\'s administrative center door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why unhealthy news seems to come back on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the hobbies of the final a number of days, and the decision that lay forward of her. This used to be evidently probably the most elaborate crisis she had encountered considering her promoting to the function of Director of analysis within the department of Human offerings.

Fiona\'s hindrance had begun the day earlier than, when the new commissioner, Fran Atkin, had called a assembly with Fiona and the deputy commissioner. The governor was once in a problematic role: in his up to date election campaign, he had made potentially conflicting campaign guarantees. He had promised to slash taxes and had also promised to keep current wellness and social packages, while balancing the state price range.

The week before, a loud and prolonged assembly of the commissioners in the state govt had resulted in a course of action supposed to unravel the challenge of conflicting election guarantees. Fran Atkin had been persuaded by means of the governor that she should meet with the senior staff in her department, and after the meeting, a principal evaluation of the department\'s packages would be introduced. The evaluation would provide the governor with some post-election breathing space. However the analysis results had been predetermined they\'d be used to justify application cuts. In sum,a compassionate however enormous discount in the division\'s social applications would be made to be certain the division\'s contribution to a balanced finances.

As the new commissioner, Fran Atkin relied on her deputy commissioner, Elinor Ames. Elinor had been one of many deputies to proceed on underneath the new administration and had been heavily dedicated to establishing and implementing key packages within the division, beneath the previous administration. Her success in doing that had been a essential intent why she had been promoted to deputy commissioner.

On Wednesday, the day earlier than the assembly with Fiona, Fran Atkin had met with Elinor Ames to provide an explanation for the determination reached by the Governor, downplaying the contentiousness of the dialogue. Fran had recounted some agony along with her position, but she believed her division now had a mandate. Proceeding with it was once within the public\'s curiosity.

Elinor was upset with the governor\'s selection. She had fought tough over time to construct the programs in query. Now she used to be being informed to dismantle her legacy packages she believed in that made up a colossal a part of her funds and man or woman-12 months allocations.

In her assembly with Fiona on Friday afternoon, Elinor had crammed Fiona in on the political motive for the choice to cut human carrier programs. She also made clear what Fiona had suspected after they had met with the commissioner earlier that week the outcomes of the analysis had been predetermined: they would exhibit that key packages the place enormous assets had been tied up weren\'t mighty and can be used to justify cuts to the department\'s packages.
Fiona used to be upset with the commissioner\'s intended use of her branch. Elinor, looking at Fiona\'s reactions carefully, had expressed some regret over the crisis. After some hesitation, she advised that she and Fiona could work on the analysis together, to make certain that it meets our desires and is finished in keeping with our specifications. After pausing once more, Elinor added,Of direction, Fiona, if you don\'t believe that the department has the capabilities wanted to undertake this venture, we will contract it out. I know some just right folks on this area.

Fiona was once proven to the door and asked to believe about it over the weekend.

Fiona Barnes took pleasure in her growing reputation as a in a position and critical director of a excellent evaluation keep. Her folks did just right work that used to be viewed as being honest, they usually prided themselves on being competent to manage any work that came their manner. Elinor Ames had appointed Fiona to the job, and now this.

(McDavid 395-396)

McDavid, James C. Program analysis and performance size: An Introduction to practice. SAGE Publications, Inc, 08/2005. VitalBook file.

The citation offered is a tenet. Please assess each quotation for accuracy before use.

Writing challenge 1 together with references

Now that you have chosen your company or software, familiarized your self with its cause, and finished your wishes evaluation, in preparation to your ultimate software evaluation this module, you will create a common sense mannequin.

This model will support you visualize the key inputs, components, objectives, outputs, constructs, and outcomes to your company and program as good as the outcomes that you are going to talk about in detail in M5 challenge 2 (RA 2). Whenever you whole your logic mannequin, you are going to additionally don\'t forget the function of efficiency size to your proposed software analysis.