Global competition and the drive for world class
status presents increasingly complex situations for
many businesses. Many companies have come
to rely on work teams to address productivity and performance issues. When an
effective work team is strategically developed, it can bring quality
decision-making skills and lasting results to any organization. When work teams lack essential training and
management support, they are costly and often ineffective.
This paper will briefly explore the work team
development process and how to optimize and measure work team performance. An in-depth analysis of case studies
illustrates “real life” problems with team–based solutions. An effective work
team is a culmination of skills, knowledge and opinions. When team development
is fostered, it exudes a synergistic quality that creates a desirable resource
in today’s competitive markets.
Defining Characteristics
A work team can be best defined as a small group of individuals with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, a set of performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Other definitions suggest that teams form to achieve greater organizational flexibility as a response to rapid growth and change (Certo, 1993). Formal definitions aside, work teams have surfaced in many forms; the key concept are shared goal attainment through effective actions.
A high performance team possesses defining
characteristics. The 4C’s are essential to any team; Cohesion, Commitment,
Coordination, and Communication.
§ Cohesion is the degree of attraction to team members, the group and its goals (DeCenzo and Robbins, 1998). Therefore, team selection should consist of a medley of diverse yet complementary skills. All members should be competent in their particular area of expertise. Cohesion is the glue that binds the team. Members of the organization become attracted to team environments as they see the team develop and succeed.
§ Commitment is required. All team members must not only believe in the purpose of the team but must be dedicated to the cause. Commitment should also extend to align with organizational goals and vision.
§ Coordination is needed to ensure that teams are cost effective. Often, companies find that meetings consume greater than 30% time commitment from participants. This is not only expensive but jeopardizes day-to-day operations.
§ Communication skills must be strong. Equal participation is essential. A team must devise methods and practices to enhance communication.
Work Team Essentials
There are key essential elements for work teams to
succeed.
§
Support from
the top: Management styles have
shifted from traditional top down methods to decentralized self-empowered
teams. However, if these teams are to
succeed, management must bless the project or task, invest in building team skills,
and give teams the time needed to develop and perform. Management interference
in the team decision making process can be detrimental. Management needs to identify their role at
the start of each project.
§
Define team
objectives and individual roles:
No team should meet without a clear objective or purpose. Management may define
goals for the team. However, the team needs to
establish their own vision for the project. This objective may be refined over
time and individual roles should emerge as action items are assigned.
§
Team
Training: Team training and
structured problem solving training for all members must be provided. Look to outside resources if the skill set is
not in-house. A consistent approach to problem solving assures success. The depth and level of detailed training may
vary and is directly correlated with the complexity of the project. Companies
have seen improved results with as little as 4-16 hours of training. The team training curriculum should include the
following:
Effective
Meetings
Decision
Making Methods
Structured
Problem Solving
Problem Solving Tools
§
Establish key
metrics to monitor results: Determine
up front what defines process improvement results and how they will be
measured. Collect data and footprint existing processes and measure team costs
vs. improvement savings in addition to typical performance measures.
Justification of expenses and results will open the door for more teams.
§
Determine
self-evaluation criteria: The team
must continually evaluate their efforts as a team and as individuals. Strict use of action item lists and due dates
or periodic scorecard of goal attainment will keep the team on track and will
identify individuals or areas that fall short of team expectations. A simple D/+ exercise at the end of each meeting identifies
what’s working and targets for change.
Work Team Tools
Team training pays off only if it’s applied. As a last activity in team training perform an applied exercise using problem definition, brainstorming or cause and effect analysis. This reinforces the training and gives the team a jumpstart on their specific project. The following details the team tools that should be determined and implemented to bring structure and effectiveness to the team.
Effective Meetings: Agree
to set rules for the team early in the process.
A consistent meeting time should be set with no telephone calls or
pagers disrupting the proceeding.
Practice effective meetings with an agenda, timely minutes and action
items. Rotate the roles of facilitator,
note taking and time keeping to ensure equal
participation. The following is an
example of team rules adopted by a continuous improvement team.
Decision Making Methods: Determine and use decision-making techniques to achieve commitment vs. compliance. Team development, decision-making methods and processes are based on an understanding of decision-making behavior. Descriptive decision making models accept the role of heuristics and bias in the decision making process and are highly applicable with respect to teams (Wickens, Gordon and Liu, 1998).
One method is consensus. Consensus is a process by which all team members agree to support a decision. The entire team should participate in the evaluation and selection of alternatives following informed discussion and deliberation. Team consensus as a decision-making process offers several advantages. Consensus fosters commitment; in that, all team members accept the decision and none oppose (Certo, 1993). You also get “buy in” because it’s a decision the each individual helped to make.
Majority rule is an alternative decision making process by which voting occurs on several presented decisions. The decision that receives the majority of votes is implemented. The entire team participates in the evaluation and selection of alternatives. Alternatives are generally approved when 51% of the team selects an option. Majority rule as a decision making process also offers definite advantages. Decisions can be made quickly and with little team training. However, one obvious disadvantage is that adequate time is not given to the evaluation of impending decisions. (Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). A second disadvantage is that only a portion of the team supports the proposition. This may impede the implementation process and ultimately the success of the project.
Some additional decision making methods to consider include anonymous voting and ranking techniques. The nominal group technique eliminates group interaction in the idea generating process. Members note ideas anonymously. The ideas are listed and ranked by the team. The nominal group technique ensures equal participation (Robbins and DeCenzo, 1998).
The
Paired comparison and criteria rating techniques offer still more options. When using paired comparison the team reviews a matrix of paired options. By show of hands, the votes are noted and totaled. Criteria rating techniques are similar. It differs in that members are asked to weight their response. Again, the alternatives are scored and the tally reveals the choice selection (Kelly, 1994).
There are many options available with regard to decision-making methods. Each team needs to experiment with alternatives and select the one that works best for the team.
Structured Problem Solving Technique: The team should adopt a structured problem solving method and agree to only fact-based decision making.
One problem solving techniques is the rational choice method. The rational choice method is a premeditated approach with clearly defined decision making steps that are used to identify the best procedures for problem solving. The rational choice method has been associated with varying academic disciplines (Yeatts and Hyten, 1998). Whether 5, 6, or 7 steps to solve problems, it is usually agreed that the method contains at least the following steps:
1. Problem Definition
2. Determine Root Cause(s)
3. Generate, Weigh and Select Alternative(s)
4. Implement
5. Evaluate
Selecting a structured problem solving method ensures consistent approach that can be applied to both simple and complex issues.
Documentation Tools: Documentation tools improve the visibility of project objectives and assist in problem diagnosis through implementation. The team toolbox should also include:
§ Brainstorming techniques for idea generation
§ Cause and effect analysis (fishbone diagramming) for problem diagnosis and root cause determination
§ Force field diagramming for solution generation
§ Criteria selection and weighted voting techniques to guide solution selection
§ Flow charts to ensure documentation of current and improved processes
§ Critical path diagrams and timelines to keep the team on track
Stages of Team Development
With a clear understanding of desirable team characteristics, key team essentials, decision making and problem solving methods, the steps that follow outline the strategic development process for high performance teams.
A work team goes through various stages of
development. It is suggested that there
are at least four defined stages of team development:
Stages of Team Development
- Forming – Uncertainty
about purpose, structures and roles
- Storming-Intragroup conflict
- Norming- Cohesiveness develops
4. Performing – Fully functional, active decision making (Robbins
& DeCenzo, 1998)
In the first stage of team development, mutual trust
must be achieved. Members assess each
other to determine individual skills and personality traits (Cianni and Wnuck,
1997). The mutual objective and goals
for the team are also determined.
The second stage involves developing strong
communication skills. Frank
communication leads to the resolution of group conflict. At this stage, the team selects the specific
group decision-making methods and processes they will follow.
At the third stage, solidarity among members seems a
natural and evolutionary process that precedes the development of acceptance
and communication skills. Team members
experience satisfaction and team commitment grows.
In the forth stage, the team is fully functional and
in control. The team strives now for
optimality and maximization of effectiveness, which is characterized by the
flexibility of members and the informal relationships the team had developed
(Certo, 1993).
Researchers often refer to a fifth and final stage of development when temporary teams are in place. This team would prepare and ultimately disband when the team objectives have been met (Robbins and DeCenzo, 1998). Knowing when a team should disband can become a real issue. Teams become comfortable with the structure, routine and impressive results. This is why it is critical to measure performance. When a team stops performing or the improvements are ready to go into maintenance mode, it’s time to disband.
Another alternative is to transfer the team talents to another project or move key players to different teams. This allows the successful team experience to proliferate throughout the organization.
Roles of Work Teams
Work teams have taken on various roles in today’s modern organizations. As the complexity of the decision making task increases, so does the empowerment of the team. Self-managed teams accomplish short-term objectives such as those achieved by a task force or quality circle. A cross-functional team addresses issues that affect more than one functional group within an organization. Design teams may encompass concurrent engineering activities. A steering committee may drive continuous improvement or address issues related to aggregate planning. Teams come in all shapes and sizes. The following illustrate some “real life” problems using team-based solutions that reveal impressive results.
Case
Study I: Team Building Results in Measurable Improvements Company Wide
Problem: The current
management staff from its parent company recently purchased the manufacturing
operations for high technology products.
While financially successful as a division, the company needed to
dramatically change in order to grow as an independent organization. Problems ranged from high corporate and
manufacturing operating costs to long lead times and underutilized
facilities. The breadth of products and
overall corporate culture discouraged cooperation between departments and
perpetuated a sense of "us vs.
them.” Groups were marginally effective
when working on common problems.
Approach: Working as a
team, company management and CMS developed an integrated strategy to train
employees in the skills needed to succeed in a competitive marketplace and
apply these skills to real operating problems.
Approximately 120 employees participated in a 32 hour training program
that included effective team building, problem solving, effective meetings,
basic statistical process control and an overview of ISO 9000. As part of this program, cross-functional teams
worked together to solve increasingly complex problems. After completion of the training phase, teams
were formed to identify major opportunities and used their new skills to
improve company performance. CMS
facilitators worked with each team throughout the process.
Results: The five top
executives operated as a team to reduce corporate overhead in this $25 million
company by more than $400,000. A team
dedicated to shortening lead times of a low volume product reduced assembly
time by 50%, also saving $83,000 in production costs. Streamlining the order entry process saved
more than 1,000 man-hours per year. The
facility utilization team developed a new production area layout, which reduced
space requirements by 30%, saving $325,000 per year in lease costs.
Case
Study II: Self-empowered Team Improves Operating Efficiency through Waste
Reduction
Problem: A food manufacturer was experiencing increasing price
competition in the marketplace. The
workforce was poorly motivated due to an environment in which they would “check
their brains at the door.” There was
little process documentation and training was primarily by word of mouth from
operator to operator.
Approach: Six cross-functional teams were established to
address key cost areas within the organization.
The teams focused on reducing scrap and waste, reducing line changeover
times and improving product quality. The
teams began by learning the six-step problem solving process. They began documenting the existing
production process, first with flow charts and then written work
instructions. As areas of opportunity
were identified, the problem solving process was used and solutions
implemented. The revised process was
incorporated into the documentation and the team moved to the next opportunity. The documentation relied heavily on detailed
photographs showing the proper method for performing specific tasks, changeover
and adjustment points in addition to visual product quality standards. The photographs were incorporated directly in
the documentation, from which they were imported into flow charts and work
instructions. As each process was
improved and/or documented, the operators not directly involved with the teams
were trained.
Results: Year over year costs due to scrap and waste was reduced
by more than $550,000. This was
partially offset by increased labor costs to hold the team meetings on an
overtime basis and materials purchased to enhance the process. These costs amounted to approximately
$300,000, resulting in a net bottom line improvement of $250,000.
Today,
the workforce continues to work as teams.
The maintenance department that required ten individuals now operates
with three, with former maintenance personnel filling key positions on the line
as technicians. Changeover time was
reduced by roughly 50%. Finally,
variability in product quality has been reduced significantly. All of these improvements were realized by
the people on the line understanding that what they do greatly impacts the
process and quality of the product.
Case Study III: Quality Management
System Implementation
Problem: A manufacturer
of welded seam steel tubing was receiving increased automotive business. The Big 3 automakers are requiring their
vendors to be QS-9000 compliant to continue to supply them. The company had effective practices in place
to ensure that their customers received quality products but they were not
documented in a formal system and few records existed that demonstrated the
effectiveness of their practices.
Internal scrap exceeded 10% of total production. The UAW represented the workforce in the
plant and their wholehearted support was crucial to developing a compliant
system.
Approach: CMS
became an integral part of the company’s Quality Management System
implementation teams. We provided guidance and support to the Steering Team
charged with writing the policies and procedures and the shop floor teams
writing the supporting work instructions.
Cross-functional teams with management and union representatives were
established to develop work instructions and visual quality standards. Because so many of the quality defects were
visual in nature, photographs were taken and incorporated in the documentation,
where appropriate. As all of the
company’s team members had full time jobs in addition to their QS-9000
responsibilities, CMS was responsible for keeping the program on track and
ensuring that the system developed was compliant with the requirements of the
quality system standard. CMS coached
team members until the company’s internal audit capability was in place.
Results: The company was awarded dual certification to QS-9000
and ISO 9002 on their first attempt. No
major noncompliance was observed. Areas
for future improvement were identified and are being addressed. A side benefit of the Quality Management
System implementation was that during the course of the program, internal scrap
was cut in half and on-time delivery improved significantly. These and improved customer satisfaction are
the best demonstration of the system’s effectiveness. During the system implementation, the company
was also awarded Ford Q1 recognition.
Case
Study IV: Continuous Improvement and the Mobile Team
Problem: A manufacturer of electronic components was
experiencing increasing volumes of overdue orders. Initial analysis of various functional
departments showed less than 60% machine utilization. To add additional variables to the problem
the process involved multiple firing processes, unreliable raw materials and
frequent systems problems. The
management “group” was under enormous pressure to increase throughput and
accomplished this only by micro-managing all facets of production. An “every man for himself” attitude existed
as each area in the organization did what was necessary to get product through
their area. So wrapped up in day-to-day
fire fighting, the group never had time to determine root cause of overdues.
Approach: CMS hosted a four-hour off-site workshop session
where the focus was on structured problem solving with a review of work team tools for this management team of five.
As an exercise, the team used cause and effect analysis to diagnose causes of
overdue orders. Weighted voting was used
to prioritize areas for improvement. The
session was so successful that the team requested a second off-site session to
look at possible solutions. The result
of the second session was a lean process improvement project. The newly named
Continuous Improvement Team (CIT) passed this project to key members of the
team and continued to identify areas for improvement and mini-projects to
reduce overdue orders.
Results: The
CIT team continues to meet
“in-house” to address issues now related to continuous improvement. They now proactively manage swings in the
order cycle and anticipate and prepare for influx in product orders. They continue to identify mini-projects and
delegate these to specific project teams. The CIT group moves from project to
project, monitoring results.
The lean
process improvement project headed by a key CIT member championed a team
responsible for a 50% reduction to setup time resulting in increased machine
utilization and capacity. Layout
improvements further reduced waste and increased operator efficiency. Identification of new equipment paid for
itself in six months, while virtually eliminating this particular downtime
cause.
Common Team Obstacles and Solutions
The preceding examples demonstrate both temporary and
permanent teams. Many of the teams still
meet regularly to monitor team performance measures and to identify and resolve
new issues.
Even the best of teams can fall into a rut.
Inter-group conflict, competition and diversity are human elements that can
affect the performance of a team. When results start to slack off or no new
progress is being made, it’s time for the group to step back and assess the
value-added contributions of the team.
Some key pitfalls to watch for are rehashing old
information, finger pointing, tardiness and absenteeism. These are signs that
the team is in trouble or maybe the project has just reached the end of its
life cycle. Beware of apathetic
concurrence. If the team arrives at
decisions too easily, without thorough discussion and evaluation, they may be
agreeing just to “get on with it.” This
type of complacency is another signal for self-evaluation.
Competition between teams may also develop causing
team members to lose sight of initial objectives. Members may become reluctant
to participate if you are perceived as the 2nd place team.
How do you “jumpstart” a non-productive team? As mentioned previously, if the team decides that it has gone as far as it can, perhaps it is time to disband.
If the group feels that they’ve reached a roadblock,
there are a few tactics you can try to revive team energy. Review initial objectives, project scopes are
dynamic by nature and sometimes teams drift off course. Pull out documentation from initial idea
generation and solution development.
Some very good alternatives may not have made the first cut, but may now
be viable.
Try a change in scenery. An off-site session gets members away from daily responsibilities that may be clouding the thought process. Bring the fun back into meetings. Comics, candy, the joke of the day, all provide levity and set the mood at the start of the meeting.
Reward the team
for previous accomplishments. Although
monetary rewards are never frowned upon, also try lunch on the boss, leaving
early on Friday, or have the boss stop by to praise the team himself.
Building Effective Teams
Many organizations have achieved success using work
teams. The difference in the level of achievement can be directly related to
the training and development process. Work teams excel when teams have
management support, training, sufficient time, adequate information and a
structured problem solving process that meets the teams needs. The effective work team can be a powerful
tool used to respond to rapid change and global competition. Foster strategic
development of work teams and yield high performance and employee
satisfaction.
Biographical Sketch
Kimberly Denton is an Industrial and Manufacturing Engineer with Creative Manufacturing Solutions(CMS), an engineering-based consulting firm located in Rochester, New York. CMS specializes in innovative solutions for manufacturing, healthcare and service organizations. Denton has spent much of her career in implementing contemporary manufacturing techniques in industrial settings. Working with Fortune 100 companies to small businesses, Denton has successfully used the team-based approach with continuous improvement teams, setup time reduction, material handling projects and lean manufacturing. She received her B.S.I.M.E. from Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT).
References
Brannick, Michael T., Salas, Eduardo,
and Prince Carolyn, (1997). Term
Performance Assessment and Measurement, Theories, Methods and Applications. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers
Certo, Samuel C. (1994). Modern Management, Diversity, Quality,
Ethics and the Global Environment.
Heedham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon, A Division of Simon & Schuter, Inc.
Cianni, Mary and Wnuck, Donna
(1997). “Individual Growth and Team
Enhancement: Moving Toward a New Model
of Career Development”, New York, NY:
Management Executive, Vol. 11, No.1
Katzenbach, Jon R. and Smith, Douglas
K., (1993). “The Discipline of
Teams”. Boston MA: Harvard Business Review, March-April Edition
Kelly, Keith P. (1994). Team Decision-Making Techniques, A
Practical Guide To Successful Team Outcomes. Irvine, CA:
Richard Chang Associates, Inc., Publications Division
Robbins, Stephen P. and David DeCenzo
(1998). Fundamentals of Management,
Essentials Concepts and Applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Wickens, Chris, Gordon, Sallie and Liu,
Yili, (1998). An Introduction to
Human Factors Engineering. New York,
NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman, Inc.
Yeatts, Dale E. and Hyten, Cloyd,
(1998). High Performance Self-Managed
Work Teams, A Comparison of Theory to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.