Case Study : Lox Stock Billiards and Sports Bar
On these two promotional nights, officers were frequently called by local residents and bar employees to handle a variety of problems ranging from noise and traffic complaints, to assaults, DUI’s, shots fired, and large crowds congregating in the street. In the typical response, officers faced extremely hostile, intoxicated crowds of young college-aged males that oftentimes numbered in the hundreds. The bar had a capacity of 299 people.
Due to the significant officer safety issues involved, as well as the potential for a serious disturbance similar to the riots that occurred recently at Washington State University, Sergeant O’Neill, the patrol sergeant working the area, decided to proactively address the problems occurring at the bar. Initially, Sergeant O’Neill collected all DUI and incident reports generated by the bar and notified the Washington State Liquor Control Board of the numerous problems. Next, Sergeant O’Neill organized a meeting to increase communication between officers and bar management, and to collectively develop solutions to the problems stemming from the bar. Up to this point, there was minimal dialogue between These two parties.
At the meeting involving the district officers, agents from the liquor control board, bar owner and night manager, the problems occurring at the bar were identified and discussed, as well as possible consequences if the problems continued; namely, the loss of the bar’s liquor license. Before this meeting, bar management was reluctant to take responsibility for the actions of its customers. As such, very few steps were taken to alleviate or reduce potential problems. From this meeting, the night manager agreed to hire private security to work these two nights and educate employees on ways to prevent “over-serving” of alcohol. Sergeant O’Neill agreed to work with management and have his squad increase their presence, call permitting, at closing time when the majority of the problems occurred as customers left the establishment.
Prior to the meeting, the bar hired only one person to handle security. Many times, this person’s dress was indistinguishable from others in the bar, thereby limiting his effectiveness as an authority figure and confusing officers called to the scene to handle a disturbance. Also, security did not take responsibility for activities occurring outside the bar, once the bar closed and relied exclusively upon the police to handle these situations, usually calling 911 after a disturbance had escalated to a point where it involved a number of individuals.
After the meeting, professional security was hired that consisted of four to six people on-site. These security personnel wore identifiable uniforms, took an active role in limiting the overserving of alcohol, and helped ensure that order was maintained as people left when the bar closed.
The meeting dramatically improved the relationship between the police and bar management. Previously, officers rarely conducted premise checks of the bar because they were greeted with suspicion and hostility from employees and management in addition to the customers themselves. Now, officers are actively encouraged by bar management to conduct these routine checks and work closely with security personnel to identify and trespass problem individuals from the premise.
Although occasional problems are inevitable at the bar, open communication between officers and bar management has greatly reduced the potential for large disturbances and generated a positive result for both parties. The bar owner is able to continue sponsoring these two promotional nights that generate a significant profit without receiving sanctions from the liquor control board that could have resulted if changes were not made. Officers, on the other hand, are not called nearly as frequently to this location and have the support of both management and security in developing proactive solutions to address the problems, thus alleviating a significant officer safety issue.
Assignment tasks:
- Based on the above case scenario summarize your understanding of the problem in a problem statement.
- Determine Causes: Using your problem statement as a guide determine the possible causes. Create a cause and effect diagram(fishbone) to present your causes. Use the 5 Whys technique to uncover the root cause.
- Simplify the identified problem by:
3.1 Identifying the major symptoms
3.2 Identify the subproblems
3.3 Describe the possible interdependencies between the subproblems identified in 3.2 above
3.4 Establish ranking/rating criteria, and rate/rank the above subproblems.
3.5 Present 3.4 in a table showing the total rated/ranked score for all the subproblems and establish the one that has the highest total
score.
- Identify and manage the risk. Based on the information presented above, answer the following questions:
4.1 Identify all the possible solutions and complete a risk/reward table to score each solution according to the risks and rewards it presents. Assign a score of High, Moderate, or Low to each option.
4.2 Explain and justify the reasons for the assigned scores and your chosen preferred alternative.
Marking guide – Individual report
| Max marks | ||
Presentation
(4 marks for the above)
Introduction (purpose of the report – 1 mark, and the contents summarised – 3 marks) Conclusion (findings and opinion – 4 marks) · APA 7th edition referencing, and citation used (3 marks) |
10
|
|
| 1 | Problem statement:
Main problem is clearly stated and briefly explained
|
20 |
| 2 | Determine Causes:
• 5 whys technique (10 marks) The 5 why questions are logically developed, they are linked to each other, probably each ‘why’ is answered and leads to the following why. The Why’s reflect the main problem and the root cause of the main problem
• Fishbone Diagram (10 marks) At least 4 main bones branched to at least 2 thin bones required for each main bone, showing root causes of the main problem. |
20 |
| 3 | Simplify the identified problem by:
1. Identifying the major symptoms from the problem statement (3 marks)
2. Identify the sub problems (5 marks) At least 5 sub problems are identified and briefly explained 3. Describe the possible interdependencies between the sub problems identified in 3.2 above (5 marks) Shows how each problem has led to the subsequent problems. 4. Establish ranking/rating criteria, and rate/rank the above sub problems. (5 marks) At least 3 criteria are identified and briefly explained. Ratings are stated and answers how each rating would help to solve the problem. For example: 5. Present 3.4 in a table showing the total rated/ranked score for all the sub problems and establish the one that has the highest total score. (7 marks) Scores are justified.
|
25 |
| 4 | Identify and manage the risk. Based on the information presented above answer the following questions:
1. Identify all the possible solutions from the case study and complete a risk/reward table to score each solution according to the risks and rewards it presents. Assign a score of High, Moderate, or Low to each option. Students are required to identify 5 solutions given in the case study, recommended solutions are not required. The solutions are highlighted in the above case study. 2. Explain and justify the reasons for the assigned scores and your chosen preferred alternative. 5 solutions x 4 marks = 20 Succinct justification of the assigned score for each solution required and the preferred alternative should clearly stated.
|
20 |
Tags: alwaysopen, assignmenthelpaustralia, assignmenthelpmelbourne, assignmenthelpsydney, assignmenthelpwebsites, london, londonstudent, melbourne, myassignmenthelp, plagiarismfreework, studentassignmenthelp