In order to demonstrate learning and development relative to the module; the author was involved in the step-by-step management of the Sodor Oil Terminal Case Study. To progress with the case study, the class was instructed to divide into Project Teams consisting of six to eight students.
The initial stage of the case study was defining a project plan with Microsoft Project. This was carried out using pre-generated information from the module, placing the project teams on a level base line from which to continue.
From this point the project teams would be involved in the planning and direction of the project on a team by team basis, each team making decisions based on new information delivered to the groups incrementally throughout the project time line.
PROJECT TEAM
Part of the learning experience was in the team selection process; rather than be grouped in a way dictated by the module; students were able to select their own team with no selection restrictions. The nature of group selection resulted in a number of groups being assembled of friends or students familiar with one another.
Although this allowed the group to come together from previous work, the author feels this was not necessarily the best choice for group selection. As the majority of the group were familiar with one another, value of the forming stage of group development was depreciated; some members of the group were alienated and remained fairly unknown during the project due to a quick progression beyond the orientation (forming) stage (Sommervill & Dalziel, 1998). This alienation in areas of the group and its dynamics was more than likely the root cause for poor attendance in later stages.
Another downside to familiarity and friendship within the group was the comfort the attending members of the group found at a very early stage. This comfort dissolved into a slow level of progression, with none of the attending members taking much of a leading and directing stance, which also reduced progression building conflict.
Had the forming phase taken part between a number of unfamiliar individuals; the task at hand would have become a focus far sooner, as the group would have used this single common element to get to know one another, resulting in emerging personalities taking on specific roles stage (Sommervill & Dalziel, 1998).
Management of the project team was initially a difficult task as during the early stages of the case study, engagement of all team members was undesirably low. Frequently only a small number of team members met during timetabled module sessions, with one regular team member present at each, resulting in poor awareness of the task at hand on a team level. The issue of attendance appeared to be created from a mixed level of familiarity between team members during the forming stage of the group.
Resulting alienation in the team caused some members to feel uninvolved in the project; this perception of their involvement had an adverse effect on overall performance. Had a more balanced forming process occurred, with one member taking a clear level of leadership in the team, the perception of a need for project success would have been higher. This in turn would have increased performance with more members engaging with a sense of involvement (Jones & Harrison, 1996.).
As the single common team member of the opening case study sessions; the author assumed the role of project manager for the initial stages of the project, in this role the author took responsibility for creating the preliminary project plan, communicating where possible with other team members.
The mismatched level of information delivered to individuals who decided to engage, created an element of confusion, as often two members of the team were on different levels of understanding. This reduced the overall 'team situation awareness'; an important aspect for keeping the team up to speed and together on the implementation ideas to ensure progression is made. This includes awareness of the current task at hand, one's own role within the team and knowledge of the bigger project picture (Parush, et al., 2010).
This lack of collective understanding hindered the group massively, as the group consistently had to provide a recap of progress to poor attendees. An important area this affected was during the costing stage; this was completed through group discussion however, a member of the group presented their own version of this on their return from unannounced absence, causing reoccurring conflict over matters previously resolved.
This task conflict is often a vehicle to improve communication; getting ideas thrashed out and occasionally inspiring a change of direction in a team, through the presentation and encouragement of alternative options (Lira, et al., 2007). In this instance the more engaged members of the group had moved on to further project stages a considerable length of time ago, simply highlighting the problems the group had communicating and sharing a single understanding and notion of progression.
The lacklustre attempts surrounding communication outside of timetabled project sessions, lead to a further disintegration of the group. Failed communication within the team caused already low team spirit to dissolve further, often resulting in certain group members being unheard from for weeks. As this attitude continued committed team members became disenchanted, lowering over all enthusiasm and generating a lack of respect and trust. This is something that happens in teams when personalities or personal priorities get in the way of a comfortable team climate. It is inevitable that where groups are naturally formed in a social context that some groups simply will not be effective without intervention (Loo, 2007).
The above are common effects caused by the breakdown of communication, highlighting this as an imperative factor of team driven success. Had the group engaged with one another more often, and attempts at external communication met by none engaged members, enthusiasm would have been higher leading to a growth in team moral and dedication. This would have resulted in a far smoother project journey (Thamhain, 2004.).
Organisation from this point was handled on a meeting-by-meeting basis, where tasks were distributed where possible to those attending during that particular meeting allowing progression to be made. This structure was undesirable but unavoidable due to the none committal attendance of certain members of the group, this led to a slow start to the case study with decisions being handled by no more than half of the group at any one time.
Although challenges to decisions displayed an overall competence from the team for completing the task, due to the lack of assessment for the group work a lack of willingness was displayed by several parties. With no direct reward or personal benefit, no real interest was invested, as the result didn't determine the individual's success. These social factors coupled with low enthusiasm from the project manager brought about by the stress surrounding team attendance and willingness, closed opportunities for the group to succeed as a functioning project team (Scott-Young, 2008).
At the halfway point of the process, organisation became slightly easier and more controlled as the group began to rally towards the common goal of the case study due to pressures and intervention from the module. This caused improvement in the team client, boosting team moral and progression awareness. This also improved leadership of the group as control returned to the project manager with the increasing regularity of having a group to lead.
An improvement in leadership and equal group understanding allowed the project to finally progress in an acceptable manner, with each member taking on responsibility for tasks assigned and ordered incrementally by the project manager. Leadership competence is a key aspect in project management; a high-ranking aspect in assessing project success, in its absence project performance sinks very quickly.
A successful leader must be able to control a willing team in both social and task orientated manners, ensuring they are focused on achieving a set goal while analysing and addressing any obstacles and challenges faced individually or as a team (Nauman, et al. 2010).
After intervention from the module tutors, the group improved slightly but did not escape attendance issues, however a more stable core membership of the group was established and began to function. This resulted in a reversal of negative team climate, an increase in team moral and task awareness allowing for progress to be made. This progress came in the form of assigning an operator to implement changes to the project plan. This allowed for a single route of control via group decisions, decided upon through structured discussion and investigation of damage control for project slippages.
Actually having the group present and being able to freely discuss numerous options, without having to revisit previous discussions allowed the project to finally move towards completion and close out.
EVALUATING THE PROJECT
Once the team was formed, tasks began to be identified and tackled, the first of which being an initial project plan produced from analysis of tasks identified from the case study brief. This information was paired with initial scheduling values (Appendix A).
This initial plan allowed the group to view the basic structure of progression. The addition of costing came through the identification of vendors and contractors, to complete tasks in this plan. The group discussed the benefits of individual vendors based on costing and scheduling impacts, from this discussion a costing plan; selected vendors and costs were added to the project plan leading to an initial project overrun of 10 weeks on the critical path (Appendix B).
At this stage the group had to weigh the pros and cons of various practices in order to bring this under control. A decision was made to pay for overtime during the painting stage of the project, after cost analysis this proved to be the cheapest option, ensuring an earlier finish (Appendix C). Alternative options would have either left the project to overrun further or caused a significant increase in costs.
As the project progressed new information was distributed to the teams, which was then processed as a group and progression applied to the project plan. In order to complete the project as close to a given time frame as possible, the teams had to then limit the negative effects within the progression, using available resources based on their decisions such as overtime or additional work force.
At the 25th week of the project, slippages were introduced based on vendor selection, mimicking unforeseen circumstances found in real world project planning. Various vendors failed to deliver, resulting in margins opening up between task completion and leaving the project over running by 4 weeks. After cost analysis as a group it was decided to take no direct action towards the affected deliveries and again add more funding in the form of overtime to the painting task. Had we selected to increase payment to other vendors/tasks directly affected by delay, it would have been far more costly where this option was cheaper and left the project running on time, without the need to pay for extended performance (Appendix D).
Further change to circumstances was introduced as the project hit 26th of April 2011. The amalgamation of these changes resulted in the project overrunning by 5 weeks, costing the group an additional £70,000 in expenditure. Thankfully our selected vendor for the jetty erection task was running ahead of schedule; boosting their overtime in return of this brought the project schedule back under control. Costing just over £55,000 rather than the initial £70,000 forecasted (Appendix E).
Drawing towards project closeout further circumstances impacted the progression of tasks which based on our project choices and vendor selections resulted in the project finishing two weeks ahead of target (Appendix F).
CONCLUSION
Although the outcome of the project was a success, with the case study finishing within an acceptable time frame; the route to this conclusion could have been far smoother and less complex. Had the author been in a group made up of unfamiliar students; it was felt the forming, storming, norming and performing stages of group creation would have allowed for more focused and targeted desires for progression.
