TEAM STRUCTURE

Types of Teams

• Comprise few members of same department• Come together periodically to assess and solve problems with functioning in their

department

Problem Solving Teams

• In addition to discussing issues, have the power to implement them• Highly effective when members are motivated and belong to different backgrounds

Self Managed Teams

• Members belong to different functions but similar hierarchical level• Use expertise of different areas to achieve common goal• Good management needed to build trust amongst members of varying backgrounds

Cross Functional Teams

• Members collaborate online, usually with very little direct face-to-face interaction• Easy to manage, but lack of motivation and trust can occur due to lack of direct

interaction

Virtual Teams

Types of Teams

Cross-Functional Teams

Fail due to -

Unclear governance

No accountability

Unspecific goals

Lack of coordinationPortfolio Governance Team

End to end accountable leader

Clearly defined goals and constraints

Main objective is success of project

Constant re-evaluation

Source: https://hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional

Types of Teams

Self-Managed Team

Autonomy to implement the decisions they come to

Ownership of tasks

Sharing of technical and managerial roles

Decisions made by people who know about the job

Lack of hierarchy may lead to conflicts in decision making

May lead to lack of creativity due to conformity

Self management adds to responsibility which may be time consuming

Types of Teams

Virtual Teams

Much more cost effective than traditional teams

Potential to hire employees better than locally availablePotential to run company 24/7

Flexible scheduling

More restricted communication

Harder to track individual effort, create culture

Conflicts and lack of trust due to no direct interaction

Collaboration is difficult as individuals work in isolation

Diverse points of views contribute to broader perspectivesShared responsibility improves collaborationStreamlined decision making process due to reduced management levelsPotential to capitalize on expertize of different members

Too many viewpoints can slow down decision

makingCan lead to problems in coordination and control

due to decentralizationIndividual appraisal and

growth difficult, may lead to employee dissatisfaction

Can lead to conformity and “Yes-manship”

Pro

sC

onsTeam-based Structure

CHALLENGES

• “All weather, affordable and safe means of transport”• Training of a rural workforce• Deconstruct and reconstruct the prototype• Reducing cost throughout design to production• “People’s car” vs. “World’s cheapest car”

TATA NANO

TEAM STRUCTURE• Tata motors – hierarchical & vertically integrated organization.

• Tata Nano – disruptive innovation – new team structure.

•Key 5 people - different engineering disciplines – Project X3 ( April 2003)

ADVANCED ENGINEERING GROUP Nikhil A. Jadhav – Industrial designer Anil Kumar – Vehicle Safety Specialist R.G. Rajhans – Body System Engineer

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Justyn Nokrek – Italian designer with IDEA

ENGINE & TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Sam Jhonny

TATA NANO

• In 2005 Girish Wagh joined as the Project lead.

• Eventually ERC became a 500 member team that comprised of small teams that had clear tasks.

• Each team comprised of experts, both from Tata motors and from outside.

• A core team of 5 engineers gathered every day to discuss the latest developments.

• In addition to this team, vendors and small group of mechanics were part of the developmentphase.

• Teams reported to the senior management that gave their inputs and took final decisions.

TEAM STRUCTURETATA NANO

TEAM STRUCTURE

Manufacturing planning team

included people from different process :

Welding, paint shop etc. Team existed

from the beginning.

Design team - repeated design

changes. Worked in close coordination with the sourcing

team

Sourcing team gave their inputs on what is

possible and what isn't to design team.

Went shopping worldwide for engine. Couldn't find anything

in budget. Review meeting held.

Ratan Tata after discussions asked the design team to build the engine in

house.

Vendor management team: Most parts were outsourced.

Selected vendor that could deliver

WHY THIS TEAM STRUCTURE?

• Tight budget constraints required iterative and modular approach. Car’s body designed twice and engine designed thrice. The floor and seats – designed 10 times.

• Teams based on components made prototyping and improving easier.

• Specific engineering and re-engineering requirements to bring down assembly costs required strong cooperation among teams working on related components

• Nano was to be designed from scratch, hence a right mix of in-sourcing and outsourcing was required.

• Team leads with strong cross-functional experience were preferred over specialists, since they understood details better.

ALL THESE CHARATERISTICS ARE THOSE OF A TYPICAL SELF MANAGED TEAM!

BELBIN’S TEAM ROLE THEORY

• Different roles that people play in a team and how does that affects team performance.

• A Team Role is defined as "a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way.“

• Belbin’s theory highlights the preferred behaviours necessary for effective team functioning.

• He has identified 9 predictable behavior patterns or “team roles.”

• Access to each of the 9 Belbin Team Roles – effective performance

• The role balance hypothesis - teams containing more of the roles will perform any given task more effectively than teams containing fewer roles.

Team of Shapers

Pros Cons

High work rate Don’t like working togetherQuick to explore possible avenues In-fightingGoal oriented activities

BELBIN’S TEAM ROLE THEORY

BRAINSTORMING

• members are encouraged to put up their points.

• No evaluation of ideas at the initial stage and criticism avoided.

• Encourage ‘Freewheeling’ – unusual and outlandish ideas are encouraged.

• Encourage ‘Piggybacking’ – group members try to combine and improve on ideas.

PROS

• Creative ideas• Piggybacking• Social matching

CONS

• Collaborative fixation• Social matching

GROUP DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES

NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

DELPHI TECHNIQUE

•No face to face discussions.•Identify a panel of experts.•Independently and anonymously write solutions.•Compiled and re-circulated for comments.•Japanese variation : ringi – sequential editing; subtasking, report creation, face to face discussion

PROS•Enlists assistance of experts.•No interpersonal problems.•Adequate time for reflection and analysis

CONSTime consuming

DEVIL’S ADVOCACY•Eliminates groupthink.•Planning group comes up with alternate solutions which are critiqued•Can also be used in early stages.

DIALECTICAL ENQUIRY

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Conflicts are inherent.2 types of conflicts – A & C•A conflict – personal disagreement•C conflict -- ideas in conflict. Focus on issue related differences.

Promote C type conflicts•Helps in identifying flaws .•Allows team to contribute openly and honestly to the decision making process.•A type conflict reduces the team effectiveness due to increasing hostility and elimination of trust.

Managing conflict•Disseminate full agenda clearly•Providing the right environmment•Keep a sense of where discussion is going•Channel discussion from A type towards C type•Support the team

Thank You