Case Study: Diego Curtiz at Highland State University
Instructor’s Guide
Purpose and Use
The Diego Curtiz case focuses on implementing changes in technology, process, and behavior. For this
reason, it is paired best with Chapter 9, “Action Planning and Implementation.” It could also be used as
the basis for a final exam.
The case is suitable for an MBA class or advanced undergraduate course in organizational behavior,
organizational change, and leading teams. It may also be useful for teaching about the non–technical
responsibilities of a project manager in a course on project management, information technology, or
operations.
Learning Objectives
This case offers four primary learning objectives related to the process of managing change:
• Identify roles and responsibilities for planning and implementing change
• Discuss tactics to address the concerns of change recipients and other stakeholders
• Assess the need for flexibility in managing change projects
Case Summary
Diego Curtiz is a recently–promoted project lead on a high priority initiative at a large public university.
The objective of the project is to implement a strategically-important new student advising system that
will drive changes in the process of advising and the role of advisors. After a year of planning, project
implementation is at its midpoint and appears to be on schedule and within budget. Curtiz is taken aback
Assignment Questions
These suggested assignment questions will help students analyze the case and prepare for class
discussion:
1) What has Diego Curtiz done well in managing the SSA project?
4) What does Tainer mean when she tells Curtiz “You have got to get Ken on board”? Do you agree
with her?
5) What should Curtiz do next regarding Ken Cullen?
Analysis
The following case analysis follows the outline implied by the assignment questions.
1) What has Diego Curtiz done well in managing the SSA Project?
First and foremost, Curtiz has kept the project on time and on budget. Given the aggressive schedule and
tight constrains on available funds, this is quite an accomplishment. He appears to have a strong skill set
well suited to his responsibilities. His background as a project analyst and his MBA education suggest an
understanding of costs, which may help him effectively manage project resources. As an experienced
developer, he is likely able to derive accurate estimates of the time needed for project tasks. His recent
certification as a project manager suggests that he is knowledgeable about leading edge practices for rapid
systems development, and his helping the team apply them could be an additional factor in keeping to the
schedule.
Another strength of Curtiz’s approach was making sure all relevant stakeholder groups participated in the
2) What could he have done better?
Curtiz may have misinterpreted the causes and consequences of conflict during both the planning and
implementation phases on the SSA project. He appears to view it as a normal and even beneficial aspect
of collaboration, but he assumes others share his belief. In reality, we see that conflict has made some
people uncomfortable and frustrated. Curtiz’s attitude toward conflict may explain why he has allowed
risk. This also may have caused resentment among other team members, and could partially explain the
motivation behind the anonymous e-mail.
It appears that Curtiz may not have put effort into building an effective working relationship with Megan
Jacobs. That she might have seen the need to go around his back to report her concerns about the project
suggests that they had not developed mutual trust. This might have undermined their ability to work
together as project and technical leads. As a newly promoted project manager, Curtiz may not have yet
demonstrated credibility to her as a leader of a high–profile, large scale implementation. Taking into
3) What challenges does Curtiz face now that the SSA implementation is at its midpoint?
The paramount importance of the project to Highland State’s fiscal results and student outcomes has
makes this a highly visible and consequential project. The changes it is driving are non-trivial and involve
many people at different levels across campus. As the deadline for completion nears, Curtiz will face
increasing pressure to succeed.
Curtiz must try to influence a diverse set of team members with different personalities, backgrounds, and
roles. He has no formal authority over them and so must work to persuade them to follow his leadership.
This is especially true for the more senior Jacobs and Cullen. Jacobs comes off as objective, deliberate,
and respectful, yet Cullen may have pushed her patience to the limit. Cullen appears to be impulsive;
while he may see himself as a good collaborator working for the benefit of the project, others see his
efforts as encroaching too heavily on their work.
4) What does Tainer mean, “Get Ken on board!”? Do you agree?
Tainer’s imperative can be interpreted in several ways. She may mean it as a directive to stop Cullen from
being disruptive and undermining the team. It may imply she thinks he is losing control of the team and
with it the implementation itself. She may have a more personal motive in mind. Cullen could be warning
Curtiz’s priority should be to influence Cullen to change his behavior so the team views it as constructive
rather than harmful to group cohesion. Curtiz should meet with Cullen to discuss his concerns about the
project direction. His goal should be to understand both what they are as well as Cullen’s motivation for
raising them. He may also want to have Cullen arrange for him to meet with some of the stakeholders to
better assess their concerns and see if he agrees with what Cullen has presented to the group.
Teaching Plan
Despite its brevity, this case can sustain a lively case discussion of up to 90 minutes or so. This section
proposes a teaching approach that has been successful in achieving the learning objectives. Note: it can be
helpful to instruct students to refer to the organization chart to help keep track of the six individuals, their
roles, and their relationships with each other. The instructor may choose to draw it on an available white
board for easy reference during the discussion.
Ask for show of hands as you count down from 10 to 1 (or until everyone has voted). The number of
responses for each can be recorded on a white board. Starting with those who rated Curtiz highest, ask:
List the responses on the board under the heading “Strengths.” Comments will include observations about
the process and objective assessments of outcomes to date. Then turn to those who gave Curtiz’s
performance lower ratings:
Record the responses under “Weaknesses.” Press students to provide an example or other data to support
their assessment. It is important to encourage students to focus on things Curtiz did or did not do rather
than on how he could have done better. The latter can easily slide in a discussion of recommendations,
which are better addressed after the entire situation has been analyzed.
Next, summarize the discussion and transition to consider the project itself and the challenges that
threaten to derail its progress.
Here responses will include the interpersonal conflict between team members and Cullen; the large
amount of work that remains to be done; and Curtiz relationship with Jacobs and Cullen as well as with
his own supervisor, Lisa Tainer. It is important to have students explain the underlying cause of the
challenge as well as describe how it may affect the implementation.
Of course, Curtiz’s most immediate challenge is dealing with Cullen. Many students will see him as the
villain, while a smaller group may view him more positively. While this will likely be the first concern
students raise, time should be spent identifying the other challenges, since resolving the issue with Cullen
may be the key to moving the rest of the implementation ahead successfully. When this discussion is
complete, it is now time to turn to recommendations for how to deal with Ken Cullen.
