RS2 Software Malta Case Study: Analyzing Conflict and Resolution

This case study analyzes a conflict that arose at RS2 Software Malta, a company providing card payment software solutions, when a bug was detected in a customized software solution for a client, leading to a missed deadline. The conflict primarily involved the technical team, responsible for software development, and the project delivery team, responsible for client communication and timely delivery. The core of the conflict revolved around who had the authority to approve overtime for resources needed to fix the bug. The technical team leveraged their specialized knowledge, while the project delivery team emphasized the importance of maintaining the company's goodwill by meeting the client's deadline. The conflict evolved through stages, from bug discovery to failed solutions and escalating intergroup tension. Ultimately, the resolution was achieved through collaboration, where both teams cooperated to resolve the problem and deliver the corrected solution to the client. The study concludes that while destructive conflicts should be avoided, soft conflicts can be productive in maintaining organizational pro-activeness.

Running head: CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note:

1CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
Introduction
Historically in all the stages of human development the rise of conflict and resolution of
the same by various means has been a feature that is seen to be constant. Either in social context
or in organizational context people have to deal with hard and soft conflicts everywhere. In this
paper the case study of conflict at RS2 Software Malta will be analyzed. The company provides
card payment software solutions to other businesses, big or small (Rs2.com 2018). The company
experienced conflict when bug was detected in one of their solutions.
The conflict
The company had taken up an order from a client for a payment solution and customized
its template software as per the customer’s need. During the regression test, there was found a
bug which hampered the software flow. The deadline could not be met because the bug repair
would need considerable time. The conflict grew at this point between the technical team whose
core responsibility was developing and running software, and the project delivery team whose
responsibility is to keep in touch with the customer and deliver the solution in the stipulated
time. The detection of bug happened in the office hours, and the solution that was provided till
the end made way for more bugs.
The conflict in this case is mainly an inter group conflict where the power play of
information has played role (Sherif 2015). The two separate teams of technical application
developers and the team of project delivery support had engaged in conflict of who should be
having the responsibility of approving the overtime of resources which was required to fix the
bug. Intergroup conflict mainly happens when two groups of parallel position engages in
conflict. The power play which was involved was information based. The technical team had

2CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
core knowledge about the software and its solution. They were empowered because they could
not be substituted in this case. The additional power source of non-substitutability was seen
to manifest as well. The project delivery team on the other hand used the power source of
legitimacy and rational persuasion. The delivery team was in direct contact with the clients
hence legitimately they had the right to ask for the responsibility of approving the overtime.
They used rational persuasion to establish that the goodwill of the company will be at stake if the
solution is not handed to the customer at the stipulated time.
The objective that the technical team hoped to achieve is to have more time so that the
bug can be fixed properly and perfect solution can be delivered, they intended to do this by using
the power source based on information. The project delivery team on the other hand wanted the
work to be completed as soon as possible and the solution be delivered to the client at the earliest
so that the delivery promise could be upheld, they intended to achieve this by logical persuasion.
The several stages of the conflict included, the discovery that the bug existed in the
solution. This was followed by understanding that the solution cannot be delivered with the bug
as it will hamper the work flow of the client, this is also called personalization (Allwood and
Ahlsén 2015). The proposed solution was designed by the technical team which failed and
increased the bugs. This increased the inter group conflict.
Every conflict evolves through several stages and ultimately reaches the point where the
groups entangled in the conflict looks for resolution to bring back normalcy in the system
(Folger 2017). Otherwise prolonged conflict hampers the normal workflow and the problem is
far from getting its solution.

3CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
In this case resolution was aimed to be achieved by collaboration (Gilin 2015). The main
five methods of conflict resolution are Collaboration, Competition, Compromise,
Accommodation and Avoidance (Kiitam 2016). In this case the two team collaborated and
cooperated with each other in order to resolve the problem and deliver the solution to the client
as soon as the bug was fixed.
Conclusion
Every organization has to face different kind of conflicts throughout its organizational
structure. In the previous day’s conflict was seen as overall villain in the organizational
perspective. However, with evolution of organizational studies and management soft conflict is
seen to be productive in maintaining the pro-activeness of the organization. It is true that
destructive conflicts which may result in financial losses are harmful and should be avoided at
highest priority. However soft conflicts which helps in different departments to be more reactive
are helpful in productivity.

4CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
References:
Allwood, J. and Ahlsén, E., 2015. On Stages of Conflict Escalation. In Conflict and Multimodal
Communication (pp. 53-69). Springer, Cham.
Folger, J., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K., 2017. Working through conflict: Strategies for
relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge.
Gilin Oore, D., Leiter, M.P. and LeBlanc, D.E., 2015. Individual and organizational factors
promoting successful responses to workplace conflict. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
canadienne, 56(3), p.301.
Kiitam, A., McLay, A. and Pilli, T., 2016. Managing conflict in organisational
change. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 9(2), pp.114-134.
Rs2.com., 2018. About RS2 - RS2. [online] RS2. Available at: https://www.rs2.com/about-us/
[Accessed 15 Feb. 2018].
Sherif, M., 2015. Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology (Vol. 29).
Psychology Press.