Project Management VI Research Paper

BBA 3626, Project Management Overview 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VI Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

6. Analyze a project team’s characteristics in its entirety.

Reading Assignment Chapter 13: Leading and Managing Project Teams

Unit Lesson Unit VI will discuss characteristics of a project team. The following is a good quote from Henry Ford: “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success” (as cited in Larson & Gray, 2014, p.375). There are many characteristics that make up a successful project team. Some of these characteristics include good communication skills among team members, committed team members, selfless team members, sharing a common vision among team members, adaptable team members, self-starting team members, influential team members, motivational team members, experienced and skillful team members, dependable team members, and supportive team members. These are only some key attributes of successful project teams. Let’s look at an example of a project that used negative synergy. “Negative synergy occurs when the whole is less than the sum of the parts” (Larson & Gray, 2014, p. 375). In 2004, the Olympics was held in Athens, Greece. An analysis of the basketball team’s performance for the United States revealed the following: The team lost three times to international competition by losing to Argentina, Puerto Rico, and Lithuania. The team was made up of only three holdovers from the group that qualified in the summer. Seven of the original players withdrew from the competition for varying reasons such as injuries, family obligations, and the security state of Greece at the time. One thing lacking here was team commitment. Fourteen of the players who received an offer to play for the United States turned down it down. The coach had to deal with a team of inexperienced players averaging 23 years of age. These players were immature and they also had punctuality issues. The team was over confident, over reliant on one-on-one basketball, and they exhibited poor team defense (Larson & Gray, 2014). In 2005, a new managing director was hired, and he demanded complete control of the team. The new manager met face -to-face with every prospective national player and asked each player why they wanted to represent their country in their own words. The new managing director got buy-in from all the prospective players. A new coach was hired and he had one objective in mind and that was to win the gold medal. The coach needed to change the attitude of the team. Basically, the team needed to act as a team. This new team had a common objective at this point, which was a far cry from the team in 2004. With a common objective, team USA entered the final gold medal game playing as a team. Unfortunately team USA did not win the game, but they played as a team rather than show casing only certain players (Larson & Gray, 2014). This second example is a story of building a Ford in-house engine from scratch in less than 36 months. Positive synergy can be related to this project in that the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (Larson & Gray, 2014, p. 375). Synergy is “derived from the Greek word sunergos” (Larson & Gray, 2014, p. 375) which means successful team. The chief diesel engineer assigned to this task knew it was daunting. He knew that to make this project a success he needed to put together a team of eager engineers and move them offsite so upper management would not interfere with their progress. This project was called Scorpion. The project earned immediate success because the team of engineers knew what the other engineers were up to. They

UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE

Project Team’s Characteristics

BBA 3626, Project Management Overview 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

knew what the others were thinking and where the problem areas existed. The result was that the Ford engine fit perfectly into the truck the first time, which practically never happens (Businessweek, 2009). The chief diesel engineer knew that the engineers worked smarter and harder when they are having fun. The engineers played practical jokes on each other to relieve pressure. The engineers went so far as to build full- size snowmen decorated with engineer parts and placed on one another’s desks. They also competed with one another in friendly competitions once the team met a critical design milestone. The engineers organized a Pine-wood Derby contest which is normally reserved for Cub Scouts. However, the engineers made their cars out of aluminum and some of the cars were outfitted with remote controls and engines. Due to a cohesive team with common objectives, the new Ford diesel engine was completed on time. “The engine was the first of its kind to use state-of-the-art antipollution technology to meet federal mandates” (Businessweek, 2009, p. 59). The engine had the best fuel economy in its category. The engine also required no significant maintenance until it reached 300,000 miles. The F-150 line of trucks today have this engine and are the best- selling in their class. This engine is considered one of the key ingredients to Ford’s comeback. The Ford example encouraged innovation and motivation. What do these two projects have in common? The most common attribute of these two examples is a common goal for the team members. The first example started out as a personal goal for the team members and no team commitment whatsoever. The team in 2005 gained a common goal instead of a personal one which led to teamwork. The second example previewing the Ford engine had team commitment and skills. The Ford team engineers were dedicated to a common goal from the beginning which led to the success of the project. Teams are an important element of project management and without a cohesive team, the results will be disastrous.

References Businessweek. (2009, October 26). Putting Ford fast forward, pp. 58-59. Kloppenborg, T. J. (2015). Contemporary project management (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Larson, E., & Gray, C. (2014). Project management: The managerial process (6th ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.