Project Team Evolution - Individual and Team Issues

Individual and Team Issues

2.5 Project Team Evolution

2.5.1 Introduction

This section briefly considers how project teams evolve and change over time.

This is a very complex area with many interacting variables involved. For example, as the project progresses through its life cycle, the team has to adopt different perspectives that are appropriate to each stage. The team therefore has to work and interact in different ways, as objectives and project characteristics change.

2.5.2 Project Life Cycles

All projects have a life cycle with phases, or stages, of development and evolu-tion through which the project passes. The following is an example of typical phases associated with new product development:

• inception;

• feasibility;

• preliminary research and development;

• manufacture of prototype;

• development and testing of prototype;

• feedback and analysis;

• second stage research and development;

• final trials and approvals;

• production;

• commissioning;

• use;

• decommissioning;

• recycling.

There could, of course, be more or different phases. For example, a market research phase may be included. Many variations are possible and the appro-priate one will depend on the specific circumstances of the project. However, in one form or another, there will be at least five clear stages. These are set out next.

• Conception and feasibility.

This involves the preliminary conception of the idea and then some form of feasibility analysis. Conception is the initial phase. It involves the client in identifying a need for a project and establishing some form of scope or limitations in the form of project boundaries. The feasibility analysis will include an evaluation of the likely need or demand for the project claim, what will be required in order to produce it, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and so on.

• Outline proposals and definition.

Outline proposals will involve a more detailed analysis of what the project will entail, and greater precision in defining the precise scope of the project requirements. These proposals will include more detailed time and cost esti-mates, a clear statement of the manufacturing and production requirements of the project, clear time scales, etc. In most cases, the proposals would also include a summary of the project resources that will be required. The project manager will use this information to gain the approval from senior management to proceed. There will generally be some form of approval required at the end of each major life-cycle stage. These approval barriers are sometimes referred to as gateways.

• Tooling up.

Tooling up is the process of producing all the manufacturing equipment and other process requirements of the project. Once the bid has been approved, the project manager has to set up the organisation and production systems.

This consideration could represent a major investment in some production systems – for example, the development of a full manufacturing production process. This phase could represent a very large investment in relation to the unit value of the product. Generally, tooling up tends to form a high proportion of project costs, and a lower proportion of mass production costs.

• Operation and production.

This stage represents the production phase. The production system produces whatever the outcome or result of the project requires. This section could itself contain numerous subsections. It could include minor repetitions of the whole life cycle – for example, where the product changes and the whole manufacturing process has to be re-evaluated.

• Decommissioning.

The decommissioning stage involves reassigning all the resources that remain after the project is completed, including reassigning people back to their functional units or to other project teams, and scrapping the pro-duction equipment or reusing it elsewhere if possible. It should also include recycling the product where possible.

The requirements of the project team will obviously vary in relation to the project life cycle. The composition and success criteria of the team will change, as well as the type and level of effort required at each stage. In

addition, as the team and objectives change, the project manager’s leader-ship approach also has to change. The whole process is fluid, and a high degree of flexibility and adaptability is required.

The relative importance of each life-cycle phase will also vary in relation to the characteristics of the project. One project may feature a very large design period and a relatively small production period. An example could be the development and production of a new car component. The research and development behind the design process could be relatively complex, while the actual production process, perhaps using established casting techniques, could be relatively straightforward. Other projects might involve lengthy decommissioning phases. An example of this would be a nuclear power station. Dounreay, on the northern coast of Scotland, had a design period of around ten years and a construction period of around seven years. The decommissioning process had already been ongoing for ten years by 2001, and it has been estimated it will run for at least another twenty-five years.

♦Time Out

Think about it: project life cycles.

All projects necessarily evolve moving through a life cycle and exhibit different phases as the project evolves. The characteristics of the life cycle and the actual phases exhibited will vary depending on the nature of the project.

A project based on the development of a new car will probably involve long design and prototype development phases. This is so because the end product will be produced under mass production processes and this factor will involve detailed research covering every aspect of the design prior to tooling up the production system. The maintenance characteristics of the new car might not be a major consideration, as most buyers of new cars will tend to dispose of them before maintenance costs begin to escalate. Recycling and decommission costs should not be significant as it is relatively easy to recycle most parts of a car.

A project based on the construction of a new road will probably involve relatively little research and development work, as the optimum design for given road types is well established. The main consideration during the design stage could be main-tenance, as this is likely to require large investments later in the life cycle of the project. Recycling costs could be significant, especially as increasing levels of landfill taxes on industrial waste disposal make it more and more difficult to find depository areas for road and similar waste.

Questions:

• What would be an example of a project with a large design phase and a relatively small implementation phase?

• Are decommissioning and recycling phases likely to become more or less impor-tant in future?

♦

2.5.3 Project Change Control and Management

The project and the project team are subject to constant change throughout the life cycle of the project. However, there has historically been very little attempt to standardise life-cycle phases and either the individual or the team responses in these to change.

This situation is changing to some extent with the introduction of new national and international standards on project management practice. The new British Standard for Project Management Practice (BS6079) advocates the use of a stan-dard generic strategic project plan or SPP. This defines stanstan-dard planning and control systems and gives recommended standard approaches to change control.

BS6079 is discussed in more detail in Module 4.

2.5.4 Project Team Evolution

Teams evolve over time through a number of recognised phases. Each phase is characterised by different team behaviour as each stage of evolution is followed by succeeding stages. Tucker’s widely known four stages of team development are summarised as forming, storming, norming and performing.

• Forming.

Forming is the start of the process. In forming, the team meets for the first time, the introductions are made and the project aims and objectives are established. The forming process involves an individual and group evaluation of the project as a whole and of the team itself. The forming process is dominated by the ‘first meeting’, where the team summarises the main project and team characteristics and aims. These are often summarised in the form of:

– a task responsibility matrix;

– an organisational breakdown structure;

– a project staff register;

– a baseline set of team and project objectives establishing duality.

The forming process ensures that all team members know all other team members, the rules of operation are established, and that everyone knows their own responsibilities and objectives. A team may or may not have a leader at this point.

• Storming.

The storming stage is about establishing cohesiveness. As individual team members begin to know each other better, they are able to build up a clearer picture of each person in terms of ability, commitment, skill, interpersonal skills etc. As these perceptions develop, there is an increasing tendency for conflict (see section 2.9). For example, some team members may resent other team members whom they believe to have authority or control that is not proportional to their ability or commitment. In an open system, the group might depose the existing leader and elect one who more closely matches the group’s perception of leadership ability. In closed systems, where there is no flexibility for leadership change, conflict and resentment may increase.

The development of a cohesive group ideal is imperative (see section 2.3.5).

Cohesiveness is essential to productivity and effectiveness. This cohesion must develop; if it does not, the group will be unproductive. However, in most cases the cohesion can only develop if the storming process is man-aged subtly. If the storming process is overly restrained, and the team is forced to accept members (especially leaders) who are perceived to be of insufficient ability or value, interpersonal conflicts will arise and the cohe-siveness of the group will be compromised. This can result in a reduction in commitment and individual motivation, and the group could fragment.

This often happens where one group supports the leader and another does not. The leader, depending on personal level of authority and power, may use influence to support and promote the leader positive school while restrict-ing the leader negative school. Managed poorly, the whole process can lead to destructive conflict and an inability of the team to emerge from the storming phase.

• Norming.

Norms are team standards. Any group or team will develop both formal and informal standards of behaviour that all members will be expected to observe. This norming process starts as soon as the storming process is complete and the organisational hierarchy and power structure has been established. Team norms vary widely in relation to a range of individual, team, organisational, and external influences. Standards of performance are likely to differ between projects because of differences in the expectations and demands of different clients. They can also differ because all project managers will have their own views about what constitutes acceptable behaviour in any particular set of circumstances.

Examples of areas where norms become established for a university course team include:

– teaching standards;

– research publication quality and rate;

– meeting deadlines for returning assignments and setting examination papers;

– commitment to course development.

• Performing.

Once the team norms are in place, the process of actually performing begins.

The team can only perform at anything like full capacity if it has overcome any internal fragmentation that may have occurred in the storming process.

In addition, performing can only take place if a full set of norms is in place. All team members have to be satisfied that the team is equitably balanced and that the contributions of each member are adequate. The performing team has resolved most or all of its interpersonal conflicts. Any new conflicts that arise can be dealt with professionally by the team and would not require the intervention of higher authorities.

2.5.5 Groupthink

Groupthink can occur where a group of individuals becomes very highly – sometimes totally – committed and motivated towards a set of beliefs, aims and objectives that the group shares. These may or may not be consistent with those of the other members of the project team, with the remainder of the organisation, or with the reasons the project is being undertaken. Important inconsistencies can cause serious problems that adversely impact on the effective operation of the team. Under the right conditions, the whole project team will enter a groupthink state.

Groupthink is sometimes an unintended consequence of highly successful team development and often starts to express itself during the performing stage of the development process. Individuals become so highly committed and motivated that they substitute the group’s emerging beliefs, aims and objectives for their own. In psychology this is referred to as a form of displacement, where the group’s objectives displace those of the individual. Groupthink is surprisingly common and the highly pressurised project environment can very easily contribute to its development. Typical symptoms of groupthink are listed below.

• Absolute commitment to the project.

Groupthink develops a misdirected certainty in the minds of group members as to the right and justice of the project. It may also include delusions of the relative importance of the project to the overall corporate strategy of the organisation. Individual project managers may develop disproportionate perceptions of the value of their projects.

• Lack of respect for competitors.

Negative propaganda is another aspect of groupthink. High cohesion and commitment can lead to the development of misdirected perceptions of direct and indirect competition. In some cases, derisory attitudes can even develop between branches of the same organisation. This type of derisory attitude can often be observed between accounts department personnel and engineers or salesmen.

It can be very dangerous to underestimate the opposition. In 1990 the English Rugby Union team were on the verge of winning the five nations championship by a ‘grand slam’ – winning against all their opponents. Their last game was against Scotland. The English team were easily the better side and they fully expected to beat the Scottish team quite easily. As a result they played with an openly attacking formation and consistently went for high scoring ‘tries’ rather than lower score ‘drop goals’. The Scottish team put on an inspired performance and eventually beat the English team, largely as a result of English over confidence and groupthink.

• Intolerance.

Powerful group cohesion and commitment can lead to an intolerance of any dissenters i.e. people with alternative points of view. Informal or formal rules and regulations are put in place to dissuade dissension and to ensure that team members either follow ‘the party line’ or leave the team.

As with derision of the competition, internal ‘censorship’ can be extremely dangerous. In the late 1990s Marconi decided to move out of its traditional defence specialisation and into the then high growth telecommunications and ‘dot com’ fields. Marconi sold off GEC (its primary defence arm) and bought a number of UK telecommunications and ‘dot com’ companies.

Some directors within Marconi advised strongly against this, especially as established telecommunications players such as Vodafone and Nokia were already issuing profit warnings. The dissenters were however overruled and Marconi went ahead with what later proved to be a whole series of disastrous acquisitions. The voice of caution was ignored in the face of the optimism that had become established within the company.

• Fear.

Team members may perceive that something is wrong but choose to censor themselves and remain silent rather than challenge the leader or be seen to be in conflict with the aims and objectives of the group. One example of this is suggested by the behaviour of the co-pilot of the 737 aircraft that crashed into the 14th Street Bridge over the Patomac River in Washington, USA on 13 January 1982. The aircraft took off from Washington’s National Airport that day and shortly afterwards hit the bridge and crashed into the river. Seventy-four of the seventy-nine people on board died because the de-icing equipment on the aircraft had not been used. The co-pilot was an ex US airforce F-15 pilot who realised during the pre-flight checks that something was wrong. Analysis of the plane’s black box recorder revealed signs of stress in the co-pilot’s voice. However, had his military training conditioned him to follow orders and not question the leader?

When the lead pilot overruled him, the co-pilot may have unconsciously elected for the self-censorship developed during his training, and the result was seventy-four dead people.

• Self-delusion.

Groupthink usually occurs where cohesion and commitment are very high.

Incoming information is filtered to portray only good results and nobody is willing to criticise the team and the leadership. One result can be that the team develops a false sense of invincibility. This tends to pervade the system and can endure despite undeniable reversals. It tends to be exhibited by most military dictatorships that face defeat. It is often exhibited by people and organisations that have enjoyed success over a long period of time.

Self-delusion is surprisingly common in successful teams. This is often expressed as an unwillingness to implement internal change in response to changes in the environment. In 1996, the UK Conservative government had been elected twice in a row and had served as the government since 1979.

They had implemented a series of unpopular policies. The UK electorate had undergone a sea change in opinion during the mid-1990s and the gov-ernment failed to recognise that their policies were rapidly becoming out of date. As a result the election swing to the opposition Labour party was one of the largest in UK history and the Conservatives were comprehensively defeated.

• Selective reporting.

Another common groupthink element consists of team filters. These are individuals or sub-groups who filter all information entering the system in order to ensure that only positive information enters and negative informa-tion is suppressed or reduced. This acinforma-tion is perceived to be necessary as negative feedback and criticism is unacceptable in groupthink. An example would be casualty figures in a conflict. In the late summer of 1940, the Ger-man High ComGer-mand firmly believed that they had eliminated 3500 British military aircraft between 12 August and 21 September. In fact they had only eliminated around 650. The figures for German losses were similarly incorrectly reported. These figures were assembled from data that were provided by individual sector commanders who believed absolutely in the cause and wished to maintain morale. As a result, inaccurate information was fed back to the High Command because people were filtering their own totals to make things look better. As a result, the High Command con-tinued with an air assault that was far less effective and much more costly than they realised. They eventually gave up and withdrew, but only after much unnecessary loss of equipment and personnel. With correct informa-tion they might have changed their strategy or tactics earlier and achieved

In document EBS MBA Project Managment (Page 94-101)