|
|
|
Computer Science 377a
Group Assignment #1: Team Dynamics
Instructor: Nicole Haggerty
Due October 18th, 2000
Group #2
Team Members:
[A]
[E]
[M]
[R]
[T]
[V]
[Y]
92/100
Table of Contents
| Executive Summary | 3 |
| I. The Tower Building Experience | 4 |
| II. Group Views on Effective Team Performance | 8 |
| III. The Report Writing Process | 9 |
Executive Summary
The purpose of the project was to build a tower according to a set of criteria and to observe the dynamics that occur within a team when working on completing a project.
The group initial strategy changed and was different from the one that was finally implemented for the tower. Roles were not assigned to members of our group, but rather roles were taken on when one recognized an opportunity to fulfill these positions. The roles adopted were often temporary and depended heavily on current situation of the team. Work was divided fairly evenly. Tasks were not explicitly assigned to group members until the building state. Leadership was never explicitly declared and the person with the most merit would usually act as a leader.
Decision making process was heavily influenced by the project priorities. It was based on the ideas given by members of the project within a free-information sharing process. Though sometimes the decision-making had some conflicts, all conflicts were confined to the realm of tower-related ideas.
In the opinion of the group members, effective team performance occurs when all members of the team are working together, under a consistent vision. In the most optimal circumstance each team member would have a clearly defined role well suited to his or her skills. Members of the group worked well together and respected each other in terms of opinions and the members of the group. Every member was given a fair opportunity to contribute his or her ideas to the project. Members of the group felt that the team performance would have been more effective if they had prioritized their goals from the beginning and ensured that everyone had a clear understanding of these goals and their priorities.
The team’s strategy for writing the report was to cover all dimensions specified. Allocation of roles and responsibilities for this report was influenced greatly by the relationships that were developed during previous exercise. Again, no direct designation of roles occurred. Individual filled roles that he/she felt suited him/her better that could contribute to the benefit of the project.
Although there was no explicit leader declared during the writing of the project report, lines of authority and organizational responsibilities were easier to recognize. Decision making process was also based upon group consensus after each idea was examined. There were some conflicts during report-writing process such as time and priorities. Each member was evolved in various classes, assignments, and projects thus finding a mutually beneficial time for meeting became difficult. Members of the group applied better time management skills to ensure that the most effective schedule was set and all work was completed by the time requested.
I. The Tower Building Experience
I-a Purpose
This exercise was to build a tower given certain criteria in the assignment outline. The purpose was not only to build the tower, but also to observe the dynamics that occur within a team when working to complete a project. How was your purpose determined? Did you have other goals beyond the assignment, e.g. winning, writing an excellent report. 9/10
I-b Strategy
The group focus was to build a strong base for the tower. By having a strong base, the tower would be strong enough to withstand the wind turbulence test. After much brainstorming and building of prototypes, the concentration went to minimizing the number of blocks used to maximize profit. The optimum blocks-used to profit ration was 125 blocks.
With no ruler or other height-measuring instruments around, there was no direct way to measure the height of any prototypes built. [T] surmised that since the standard piece of paper measured 8 ˝ by 11 inches, stacking the blocks along the length of the paper and counting the number of blocks would tell us how many rows of blocks would be needed to create a tower 11 inches high. By doubling that number we could get a good estimate of how many blocks would be necessary to reach the minimum 22-inch requirement. The group calculated that sixty rows of blocks were needed, so a formula was developed to calculate the total number of blocks that would be needed to make a 22-inch tower:
Number of blocks per row x 60 rows for a 22-inch tower = Number of blocks for a 22-inch tower.
In the initial design, the tower would consist of six blocks per row but after calculating that 6 blocks per row x 60 rows for a 22-inch tower = 360 blocks for a 22-inch tower. This greatly exceeded the original 125-block limit we set, which was unacceptable.
As group members continued to build prototypes, the focus then went to body of the tower. The group came to the conclusion that a '2 x 2' design would reduce the number of blocks that would be used, therefore, it would be cheaper and it would be faster to build. During all the brainstorming the group analyzed all prototypes and decided to switch strategies and go for the profit-optimizing height of a 30-inch tower, with the secondary objective to minimize the number of blocks used.
Due to time constraints during the design process, there was not enough time to fully build and test the tower so it was decided that the maximum time allowed for construction would be used. Strategy should focus on performance goals and who decided them. Did you have performance goals beyond a strong base? 9/10
I-c Roles and Responsibilities
Roles were not assigned to the members of our group, but rather the roles were taken on when one recognized an opportunity to fulfill these positions. The roles adopted were often temporary and depended heavily on the current situation of the team.
As our group settled down in our new quarters, everyone had their own thoughts and ideas brewing in their heads, yet it seemed nobody felt comfortable making the first move. [A] detected the hesitancy and immediately took the initiative to force the project into action. Pulling out her pen and notebook, she encouraged others to share their ideas and objectives. She pushed the group to work towards common goals, and began analyzing the different strategies that the group began spitting (out). As stated in Chapter 19: Performance Management, objectives are set to "co-ordinate effort across the team and to motivate team members by giving them clear tasks and development opportunities". [A] was consistent in keeping our objectives clearly visible during the brainstorming process. This helped us advance from one idea to the next, immediately discarding the ideas that clearly would not satisfy our goals, and building upon ones that showed potential. Not only did [A] get the ball rolling but also she kept it moving at a reasonable pace.
Without a lot of time to build group familiarity, some of the members felt uncomfortable sharing their thoughts with strangers. Some team members withheld their ideas fearing the group would not accept their design. [M] helped the group overcome this shyness by praising any valid contribution and acknowledging individuals for their worthy efforts. [M]’s supportive attitude fostered a positive environment that allowed a greater flow of ideas from all team members. In Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams, this is recognized a characteristic of high performance teams.
Certain ideas presented by group members may have been abandoned too quickly. Instead of completely rejecting a design [Y] built on them. He was able to improve it but had made it vastly more complicated and difficult to construct. Unfortunately, [Y] had difficulties communicating his ideas to the rest of the team. When the group was aware of the potentials of [Y]'s complex design, there was insufficient time to plan, organize and build a tower that could incorporate it.
Once the individuals of our group became more comfortable with one another and began to identify themselves as a member of the team, suggestions started streaming out at a faster rate. While we were gaining an euphoric sense of identity within the group, we were rapidly losing sense of reality. Fortunately, [R] was able to bring us back by reminding us of how much time remained and our relatively slow rate of progress. With [R] as our link to the outside world, we were able to produce a structure on time, which satisfied all requirements.
As several ideas evolved, conflict arose. In a newly developed group where roles had not been fully established, mediating different proposals proved to be extremely time-consuming. [E] eased this strenuous decision-making process by clearly acknowledging the advantages and disadvantages of the suggestion under inspection. This made it more obvious as to which path to choose and also helped get everyone travelling down the same path.
[V] maintained a close watch on the project specifications and made sure we were always satisfying the minimum requirements. He analyzed different proposals, calculating any profit or losses. This prevented us from making false assumptions and blindly travelling down the wrong trail.
Nearing the end of our given time, [R] pointed out we had very little time left and had made very little progress. As the fear of not producing a finished product, spread throughout the group, we began to panic. [T] recognized the trouble we were in and saw the immediate need for a strong group leader to pull things together. Wasting no time, he firmly identified exactly what needed to be done and transformed our panic stricken group into a fully functioning and focused team. This fresh team was driven by a common vision. "A shared vision unites professionals with different backgrounds and agendas to a common aspiration," as described in Chapter 10. The new vision introduced new goals that were accepted by each member and achieved by the team.
Overall the work was divided fairly evenly. During the planning stage each individual contributed in his/her own way. Tasks were not explicitly assigned to group members until the building stage. At the construction phase, everyone was truly functioning as a team. Since the team had an ingrained common vision, it was possible to assign a specific part of the tower for each member to build. How did these roles relate to those discussed in the class literature? 9/10
I-d Leadership
Leadership was never explicitly declared -- it emerged implicitly and was held by the person with the most merit. In this way the group was a form of meritocracy.
According to the class handout article: The Modern Project Manager, "one of project manager’s role is a motivator and an integrator," and this accurately reflects [A]’s role. She initially assumed the role of leader when she took her pen and notebook out and began to address the different ideas that emerged. Her intuitive action motivated other members to get involved in the project and became, as it was described in Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams, "the source of inspiration to other members."
However, the group did not come up with any feasible tower design until late into the planning session. As we came to closer to deadline, we realized that we (hasn’t) made any specific decision how to build tower, how many pieces we were going to use, what height we targeted (for).
As the group was feeling the pressure of the looming deadline, [T] built the bottom of tower and made a design proposal that helped transform the group by providing a plan that everyone could agree upon. This was an example of the project management skill "effective decision making" that was described in the class handout article: The Modern Project Manager. With a design in place, the group had something to unite behind and could now work together more effectively. 10/10
I-e Decision making process
All members of the group initially contributed their own ideas on how to build the tower by sharing them in a town-hall style free-for-all manner. This free information sharing was great as it allowed many different ideas to be put forward.
The decision-making process was heavily influenced by the project priorities, which unfortunately sometimes conflicted with each other. As a result, the first 30 minutes were filled with indecision.
Part of the reason why the group lingered on so many of the old ideas was that there as never a consensus to completely reject it and to move on to worthier designs. Only when the final design was proposed did everyone start to fully agree with each other and have a true consensus on the team plan.
Our group performance followed "The Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Group Development" rather than "The Five-Stage Team Development Mode" which were both described in Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams. The part that stated "a major transition [occurred] that [included] the dropping of the group’s old norms and behavior patterns and the emergence of new behavior and working relationships that [contributed] to increased progress toward completing the project," served as a particularly poignant illustration of our group experience. 10/10
I-f Conflict
There was hardly any personal conflict at all. All conflicts were confined to the realm of tower-related ideas. Disagreement and conflicting views naturally surface within a free-information sharing process, according to Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams. Group members had different ideas about general strategy, priorities, and resource allocation. When a conflicting design or idea was rejected, reasons were given that explained why. The general sentiment was that the idea was being rejected not for personal reasons but for valid technical reasons. Once the explanation was put (out), it would satisfy most members and help the group switch their attention to another idea. This type of conflict is constructive because it helps filter out unusable ideas and explains what was wrong with it, thereby letting others know what factors to consider when proposing a new one. Our group experience shows how "some conflicts support the goals of the group and improve project performance," as stated in Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams.
During the tower planning session, we did not have a big debate or argument on how to solve the problems but we still had different ideas about the solution. However, these different ideas would be best described as functional conflict because according to Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams, "Functional conflict plays a critical role in obtaining a deeper understanding of the issues and coming up with the best decisions possible." By respecting each individual’s opinion while sharing the same group goals we were able to solve small conflicts and this enabled us to accomplish our objectives. We acknowledged that these conflicts were very essential part of the group planning process and dealing with these conflicts in a professional and mature manner was crucial step in overall positive group performance. 10/10
II. Group Views on Effective Team Performance
In the opinion of our group, effective team performance occurs when all members of the team are working together, under a consistent vision. In the most optimal circumstance, the team will come together, each member with a clearly defined role, well suited to his or her skills. We believe that everyone will add value to a project in an individual way, and in order to work effectively, members of a team should be contributing to the project in a way that will best utilize these individual talents, and differing personality types. We have learned that different personalities will lend to different skills and contributions when individuals unite in a team. It is clear that when a team member's role is best suited to his or her personality type, he or she will be most comfortable and most able to actualize his or her potential.
The individual members of the group worked well together in that all were polite and respectful of each other. We kept the conflict to a minimum and when ideas were rejected, it was done gently and valid reasons were given. The Tower Game exercise differed from a group project that would have been undertaken in a real-world commercial setting because most of us didn't know each other. We may have been extra polite and worked hard to be unobtrusive and refrained from criticizing ideas. Everyone was given a fair opportunity to contribute his or her ideas, and all ideas had an equal shot at becoming the final strategy. All of the members of our group were flexible and avoided being stubborn about decisions which helped minimize conflict.
We feel that our team performance would have been more effective if we had prioritized our goals from the beginning and ensured that everyone had a clear understanding of these goals and their priorities. We lacked focus, because we differed in our opinions of what "winning" The Tower Game meant. Some of us wanted the highest tower, some of us hoped to build a tower using the least amount of blocks and some of us would have liked to create a structure that was most aesthetically pleasing. The goal of winning was well understood by everyone, however we needed to clarify what that meant to us. Because of this, the individuals of the group tended to create their own agendas. If we had taken a top-down approach to resolving the paradox of setting objectives, then Chapter 19: Performance Management, would have been appropriate as a guide: "First, you must communicate a clear vision of what your project is there to achieve. This will enable your team members to appreciate that their objectives must contribute to that purpose". We were all working on our own plan and not working efficiently together. From Chapter 8: Organizations, we have learned that "Efficiency is achieved primarily by breaking down complex tasks into simplified, repetitive activities, as symbolized by assembly-line production methods". If we had determined a common goal, and broken down the required tasks, distributing responsibilities appropriately, we would have accomplished more, in less time.
From past group project experiences and experiences with software development, all members of the team have an excellent understanding of how important the design phase in a project is. However, we had a lot of difficulty with our design and essentially lacked one. Instead of choosing a design and then working together to create and perfect it, we had many designs on the go. Group members switched from one design to another, as one would emerge as the better one as it was developed. Essentially, we had small teams forming within the group, with members hopping from one to the other based on which idea seemed better. In a sense, this may have lead to internal competition, which can lead to an inefficient performance. There are more factors than goals and working together. You should address four factors for full credit. 15/20
III. Report Writing Process
III-a Purpose
The team’s purpose for writing the group report was identical to our purpose during the tower-building exercise, to complete the written report by the designated due date. The outline of this report was determined by the guidelines specified on the assignment sheet.
III-b Strategy
Our performance goals for this project were to produce a well-written report, covering all dimensions specified, and minimizing the time required doing so. Unlike the tower game exercise, our goals were well defined and acknowledged during the elementary stage of the report writing. The team realized that the lack of such definition hindered the progress of the tower design project. Similarly, from the experience gained during the previous group exercise, each member of the team recognized the importance of a more structured and organized method of working on a project. For instance, we acknowledged the lack of time management that occurred during the tower design project and thus set intermediate goals or milestones. Also recognizing that each member of the group each had many other pressing matters at hand, we scheduled for all rough work to be finished by the Friday before the due date. Thus leaving four days for editing and polishing. However, during Friday’s scheduled meeting, it was established that the work was not completed by the group and that a new date needed to be decided upon. Consequently, Sunday Oct 17th at 12 noon became the newly appointed deadline to have completed the rough work by. As much of the work was yet to be completed, it was determined as a team that the assignment would be divided up amongst each of the individuals. Each member would then email his or her finished copy to [T] for editing. Furthermore, in order to ease the transition and unification of the team’s work, we agreed upon a common format of using MS Word 97, underlining all categories, and using 12 font, Times New Roman. After the editing, the finished copy would be sent to [V] who would then write the executive summary.
III-c Roles and Responsibilities
The allocation of roles and responsibilities during the report-writing phase was influenced greatly by the relationships that were developed during the previous exercise.
Like the tower building exercise, there was no explicitly role-assignment process. Any roles such as leader, secretary, researcher, were task subjective. An individual filled roles when they felt they had strengths in that area and would benefit the project. For instance, [E] emerged as the group’s initial leader as she initiated communication with the group to begin work on the report and scheduled the primary meeting. Through out the first meeting, [E] continued to highlight the importance of maintaining an effective schedule and keeping focused on the actual dimensions outlining the report.
Later, [T] assumed the role of leadership as he helped the group generate ideas and work efficiently. Furthermore, [R] whom volunteered to be the secretary for the first meeting initially recorded the notes. Later, [M] assumed responsibility, as she took down the ideas brewed from the discussion during the rest of the meeting. Similar role reversals occurred during the second meeting. For instance [A] then helped the group formulate and organize thoughts. The team, however, designated one role. The team agreed that [T] should assume the identity of the editor as we felt confident in his writing skills due to the compliment paid to [T] by Keith Edwards, the CS 377 Teaching Assistant.
From the tower building exercise we recognized the importance of designating specific responsibilities to the members of the groups. Thus each member was in charge of portion of the assignment. The work was divided voluntarily, where members assigned themselves to an area that they felt capable of efficiently completing. [T] then wrote each member's names upon a sheet of paper. The paper was then distributed amongst the group, so that each member could themselves write down their specific duty. This exercise was to ensure that each member was aware of the area they were responsible for.
Therefore, the team divided the work in a functional manner which both increased the members confidence in the work they were to complete as well as minimized the over all time for such work to be finished.
III-d Leadership
Similar to the tower project, no explicit leader existed during the writing of the report. [E] took the initiative of organizing the first meeting and was perhaps the initial leader. However, during the primary meeting and the subsequent meetings to follow, [T] took on the responsibilities as a leader as he had the most to verbalize. From the tower building experience, we became confident in each member’s ability to successfully complete tasks and were thus more willing to allow [T] to assume the role as team leader.
[T]’s role as leader emerged from his initiative to respond to the assignment and begin the initial brainstorming exercise. Furthermore, [T] ensured that each member was aware of his or her assigned work and sent out memos regarding such.
Even so, [E] transformed her role as the initial leader to that of a co-leader by pushing the team to focus on the actual requirements of the report. She ensured that the group did not stray from the task at hand and reinforced the need for a scheduled date for the rough draft of the work to be complete.
III-e Decision Making Process
During the tower building exercise, our decision making process was greatly influenced by the limited time allotted. Thus, we were forced to make decisions faster and were not able to fully explore all possibilities or suggestions brought forth. During the report-writing phase, however, we were able to give all suggestions full exploration, since we ourselves set our own schedule.
Similar to the previous team project, free information sharing was encouraged, for instance in our brainstorming meeting. The team realized that such sharing allowed for team members to feel more comfortable expressing their ideas and increased the number of ideas suggested. The decision process was then based upon the group consensus after each idea was examined.
III-f Conflict
Limited conflict arose during both projects. During the tower building exercise and the writing of the report, the greatest conflict was that of time. The short period of time given for the first project contributed to the confusing perceptions concerning the most important priority (i.e. height, number of blocks, etc). The time restraints also deferred the group from building relationships and elaborating on proposed designs. Thus the team realized that such time restraints increased the importance of determining priorities. Similarly, during the second project, the report, the time conflict arose from the other responsibilities and engagements of all the team members. Each member had other classes, assignments and projects to contend with and attempting to schedule meetings at appropriate times was difficult. Due to the immense workload that faced all group members, it was important to quickly finish this report so that we would enough time to complete the other schoolwork we had. The team thus applied better time management skills, using the time restraints to ensure that the most effective schedule was set and that all work was completed by the time requested.
In order to reduce conflicts between members of the team, each member should share the same vision. In Chapter 10: Managing Project Teams article, it stated that "a shared vision unites professionals with different backgrounds and agendas to a common aspiration". It also stated that "sharing the same vision helps motivate members to subordinate their individual agendas and do what is best for the project. It also provides focus and help communicate less tangible priorities, helping members make appropriate judgment calls". Therefore by having the same vision among members, different kind of conflicts on things such as time, priorities of the project and quality of specific work can be avoided.
Although time conflict arose from the tower building exercise and the subsequent report writing, the group was successful in avoiding a more serious type of conflict -- between team members. Furthermore, the nature of the conflict that did arise increased the team’s focus and concentration on the task at hand. Good discussion of what the group did differently and how it was based upon lessons learned. 20/20
| Page Last Modified: 07/30/2025 09:50:50 |