Group: Phanara Mao

Group Participation (+roles)

Phanara Mao (Leader and Recorder) Lina Kim (Idea Person) Sophearangsey Tep (Idea Person) Hemkiry Song (Idea Person) Vuthyka Chantheavuth (Idea Person)

Date of Discussion: May 21, 2014

1. State the problem the group was discussing: We were discussing about the beggary in Cambodia.

2. In short, list all the solutions brainstorm by group: Providing education to beggars @ : 1 Kill all the beggars - : 0 Regulate the law of to prohibit the beggary activities @ : 1 Don’t give money to beggars - : 0 Send beggars to Orphanages @ : 1 Government support to disable people - : 0 Charity activities @@ : 2 Strict the law of human trafficking @@ : 2 Government supports @@@ : 3 NGOs @ : 1

Result: - Charity activities : 02 - Strict the law of human trafficking : 02 - Government supports : 03

3. Choose the solutions that you think are the best: Charity activities Strict the law of human trafficking Government supports

4. Develop the steps for the solution (how can it be implemented): Charity activities: gathering money and stuff by various methods such as; charity

concerts and foreign aids. Strict the law of human trafficking: serious punishments to human traffickers and

make public advertising on this law Government supports: providing housing and building center for providing social

services to beggars, specifically, educate the child beggars, providing skills to adults, and also provides some easy skills to elders.

5. Develop the criteria: Effective : how many people would be helped huge amount or small amount Time taken : how long does it take to help Term of result : how long does it help, in the long run or the short run Budget : how much we going to spend on this

6. Note down the structure of presentation:

Lina Kim : Introducing the topic

Vuthyka Chantheavut : Problems and proofs

HemKiri Song : Causes and future prediction

Sophearangsy Tep : Optimal Solutions and its specifications

Phanara Mao : Criteria, evaluation, the best solution and conclusion

7. On the scale from 1-10, how active were the members of the teams

Name Evaluation Attendance General Comment Phanara Mao 8.6 Present Too serious, and too strict. Assigning clear

tasks clarification, good time management and being with all members.

Sophearangsey Tep 8.7 Present Full participation in the discussion, obeying the regulation, and well-prepared work flows, but late submitting the tasks.

Lina Kim 8.7 Present Full participation, encouraging, and also rejecting some ideas. Well-prepared and good works, but late submit the tasks.

Hemkiry Song 7.0 Present Partial participation, sometimes too engaging with the teams, but sometimes does not, also late submit tasks.

Vuthyka Chantheavuth 6.0 Distance Partial participate, participate in distance and she works so hard, but not so efficient. Additionally, submit the tasks late.

8. Were any disagreement?

Yes, disagreement exists several times, but we dealt with those objections by using

majority approaches. Specifically, Lina objection, it is about criteria”ethnic” and etc.

9. Was the team work efficient?

All team members think that the leader is too serious and strict, but in fact, team

leader is not too strict and too serious. ( culture of not being serious and timely )

Reason: team members have never experienced with this kind of leader in Cambodia

and most people they work with are not time-sensitive and academic-sensitive.

Team members didn’t follow all the steps leader assigned properly (not so academic)

In leader’ eye, the team was not efficient because 4/5 members submit the tasks late However, the team was not efficient, but it becomes more effective and academic