Real Project Teams Bring Real Project Success

Ever wonder what happened to management's commitment to growing and fostering winning teams?  Why it is that today, CEOs and CIOs are reducing their investment in team-building.  Are teams another casualty of over-exuberant cost control or a reflection of management's attitude that talent is just another plug-and-play commodity?  Is there a connection between sustainable success in delivering IT projects and tight and cohesive teams?

<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N815.ibmganthead/B2802818;abr=!ie;sz=336x280;ord=04230534?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N815.ibmganthead/B2802818;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=336x280;ord=04230534?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N815.ibmganthead/B2802818;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=336x280;ord=04230534?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=336 HEIGHT=280 ALT="Click Here"></A> </NOSCRIPT>

In my experience, part of the formula for delivering incredible value on IT-centric projects is the quality of the team doing the work.  Unfortunately, it seems that more and more projects are resourced using a talent pool concept where people are thrown together based on credentials without much regard as to their collective chemistry, which in turn does little to foster a winning team environment.  Once the project is over, the players go on their merry way perhaps never to work together again.  Thus, there is little emotional connection to the project, little or no buy-in by the "team" to the project or each other; in short no investment other than just performing assigned tasks.  Is it any wonder that project costs are increasing and project successes decreasing?  Imagine any sport where at each game a team was assembled based on talent (like all-star games) and not based on their ability to work as a unit towards a common goal: winning.  Just like in the all-star games the quality of play usually is poor and the effort put out equally as unimpressive.

What's needed is a return to the premise that fielding a team that works together as a unit over the life of many projects will more than pay for itself in short order.  Great teams take time to gel.  They need to build inner trust and rapport in such a way that they don't second guess each other; they defer to each other's expertise level, while watching each other's backs.

Unfortunately, for most organizations permanent teams are seen as expensive and inefficient because they can't be deployed as a unit on a full-time basis.  The problem is that teams are measured based on FTE's utilized and not by the results achieved.  Using an FTE approach to justify the team, I guess we wouldn't have SWAT Teams, Fire Departments or Special Forces.  This blind spot among executives has most likely cost billions in true productivity; the kind of productivity that actually produces breakthrough outcomes.

So what can be done to build teams that can stay together over extended periods of time?  First, management can create teams that come together for projects but also perform other staff level duties when project demand is low.  Examples of these duties would include training, research, testing and implementation reviews.  The idea is to have the team members active but on call when a project surfaces.

Next, organizations can organize their project portfolios in such a way that optimizes dedicated team efforts.  In this way, a team could work on simultaneous projects as a team allowing them to move between the projects in order to keep them fully deployed.  Two to three projects, somewhat staggered as to phase, can usually occupy a five person team full time.
Finally, management can create a Macro Team Pool comprising people whose talents and personalities complement each other and then rotate them in and out of projects in a way that builds and sustains the macro team's rapport while allowing flexibility on team staffing.

The goal is to create a cadre of IT and project professionals that work well in a team environment in a way that builds an ongoing sense of belonging and accomplishment.  In doing so the organization can enjoy accelerated project results, improved retention of talent and superior project ROI.

Sometimes great teams happen by accident but more likely than not they are the result of purposeful planning and orchestration by management.  The catch is that management needs to see the value in the team proposition and be willing to invest in the building and nurturing process.

Do closely knit teams make a difference to project success?  There can be no doubt that they do.  One case in point can be found at GE Business Information Center (GEBIC).  As recently retired John Wilfore, head of GEBIC recounts:
"GEBIC services were unique because of the commitment to empowered and self-directed work teams.  These teams significantly increased cost-based productivity by 106% and increased customer satisfaction from 93% to 99.4%."  (Source - http://www.callcentres.com.au/GEBICteams.htm)

Creating winning self-directed project and work teams isn't rocket science but it does take commitment, patience and vision.  In the end, the organizations with the best teams will win.Michael Wood