Essay On Jim John's Case Study
977 Words
4 Pages
Assignment #2 There are numerous concerns in Jim Jensen’s approach to resolving his team’s customer service difficulties. Prior to conducting research, Jensen does not collect any information from his sales staff or other colleagues. Instead, he assumes the customer complaints are due to his team’s inadequacy in providing satisfactory customer service. This assumption is a substantial flaw in Jensen’s process. There may be other reasons why the number of customer complaints has increased such as dissatisfaction with delivery time or an increase in product price. The sales team may be providing excellent customer service but because Jensen failed to consider these alternative causes. I would suggest Jensen reads the complaints to see if there
…show more content…
Because there was no effort made to isolate confounding variables such as day of the week or time of day, it is not known if the training had a direct impact on the employees or if there was another factor influencing the results. The experimental group received training on Tuesday while the control group was trained on Friday. This may result in variance due to fatigue and differing levels of interest. People may be less tired and more interested in participating in training on a Tuesday whereas, by Friday, many people are tired and focused on their weekend plans outside of work. A better version of the experiment would be to have both groups receive training on the same day at the same time in separate areas. This would help isolate the confounding variables related to …show more content…
This relates to a content’s representativeness as determined by subject matter experts. Jensen did not consult any experts in the field of customer service prior to conducting his experiment and this may result in poor content validity. Jensen would benefit from conferring with individuals who are knowledgeable in this matter and could suggest potential criteria.
Following training, the employees are not held accountable for using the training program’s information. This shows a lack of organizational support and without accountability, many employees may simply resume their prior approaches to customer service. Jensen could improve upon this deficiency by having weekly sessions discussing with his employees their experiences with customers and how they handled the situations.
Jensen later conducted an independent samples t-test to find a p-value. He believes that because his team scored higher than the control group, the training must be a success. While there is a noticeable difference in means, the p-value is at 0.17. A researcher must reject the null hypothesis to conclude their results are likely not due to chance or measurement error. A p-value of 0.05 is needed to reject the null hypothesis and Jensen did not achieve this value. As a result, he cannot conclude that his findings suggest successful training techniques. While the number of complaints dropped in the month following training, it is not known whether
Because there was no effort made to isolate confounding variables such as day of the week or time of day, it is not known if the training had a direct impact on the employees or if there was another factor influencing the results. The experimental group received training on Tuesday while the control group was trained on Friday. This may result in variance due to fatigue and differing levels of interest. People may be less tired and more interested in participating in training on a Tuesday whereas, by Friday, many people are tired and focused on their weekend plans outside of work. A better version of the experiment would be to have both groups receive training on the same day at the same time in separate areas. This would help isolate the confounding variables related to …show more content…
This relates to a content’s representativeness as determined by subject matter experts. Jensen did not consult any experts in the field of customer service prior to conducting his experiment and this may result in poor content validity. Jensen would benefit from conferring with individuals who are knowledgeable in this matter and could suggest potential criteria.
Following training, the employees are not held accountable for using the training program’s information. This shows a lack of organizational support and without accountability, many employees may simply resume their prior approaches to customer service. Jensen could improve upon this deficiency by having weekly sessions discussing with his employees their experiences with customers and how they handled the situations.
Jensen later conducted an independent samples t-test to find a p-value. He believes that because his team scored higher than the control group, the training must be a success. While there is a noticeable difference in means, the p-value is at 0.17. A researcher must reject the null hypothesis to conclude their results are likely not due to chance or measurement error. A p-value of 0.05 is needed to reject the null hypothesis and Jensen did not achieve this value. As a result, he cannot conclude that his findings suggest successful training techniques. While the number of complaints dropped in the month following training, it is not known whether