Skip to navigation, content

Showing 21 - 30 of 51 matches

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6    
  1. Zenith Rewards Key Project Team with Project-based Shares Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    Zenith Electronics Corporation piloted a team compensation program based on "project equity." The incentive program consists of awards of project shares allowed to increase in value as the team hits its milestones. Dedicated team members, shared members and an off-shore team, each received different numbers of shares at the start of their participation in the project. At the outset, each share had zero value. With the timely accomplishment of an alpha milestone, a share's value increased. Crossing a beta or a production milestone raised the value again. Zenith management noted that the project was on track with a challenging new product going into production less than a year after the project began. With many calls to replicate this incentive structure in other projects, Zenith recognized this program as a success story, even in its pilot version. (6 pages)

  2. Core Teams Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    In this report, Dan Dimancescu describes the basics of Core Teams, a best practice visible in many complex projects and programs. To bring continuity and coherence to such projects, dedicated core team members are committed full time for the life of the project. Dimancescu explains the relationship of the core to its "extended" part-time members. The latter fall into two categories: suppliers and customers. These, in turn, can be divided into two sub-categories: external and internal. These distinctions bring roles and responsibilities into clearer focus. The core team will "deliver" results to its customers, and it will call on it suppliers to "provide" skills, competencies, and support services. These relationships describe the participants in a value chain. Dimancescu cites real-world examples to illustrate the main concepts in Core Teaming. (4 pages)

  3. Empirical Study Measures The Impact Of Reward Structures On Cross-Functional Product Development Teams Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    A study published in the Journal of Marketing examined the effectiveness of reward structures on cross-functional product development teams. The study examined incentives for 26 teams in nine medium-sized to large high tech firms, identifying four types of reward structures. Rewards can be distributed equally to the team as a whole, or allotted to individuals based on their status in the organization. Rewards may be based on adherence to a process (i.e. successfully reaching a milestone in the development process) or they can be tied to achieving specific outcomes. The researchers endeavored to test empirically, the effectiveness of each of these reward structures. The researchers concluded that “The pattern of results suggests that for [new product development] projects in general and for long and complex projects in particular, linking rewards to process-based criteria (such as procedures or behavior) is detrimental to team performance, whereas linking rewards to output produced by the team has a positive influence on the external dimensions of...[team] performance." (4 pages)

  4. A Framework for Team Charters Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    Chartering product development teams is a powerful tool in the program management discipline for helping to align projects around program goals that directly support strategic business objectives. At a presentation for the Program Management Forum, John Hengeveld and Jos Campos of Rapid Innovation, LLC, provided a framework for team charters. In this framework, the purpose of a charter is to create alignment of intention between the business, its leaders and the team. A charter is an agreement between a team and its sponsors defining the key operating parameters and metrics of the team's performance. A charter defines the reason for the existence of the team, its scope, and its resources. The team charter also either directly or indirectly defines the roles and responsibilities of the sponsor (senior leadership), of the program manager, and of the team itself. (4 pages)

  5. When the Manager Leaves the Room Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    In this commentary, Dennis Smith points out the power of undocumented, informal organizations that grow up around the formal structures of the corporation. According to Smith, when the organizations of 80 years ago did not meet project leaders' needs, matrix organizations took a step toward flexibility, while firmly entrenching the command and control style. Both organizational structures were about flexibility for the convenience of the business – not for the team. It was these hierarchical and matrix structures which caused the creation of parallel, yet hidden, informal organizations. The informal organization is how the team actually organizes and works together; team members look to this informal structure for leadership. Writes Smith, “If you don't see the informal organization, you can't engage it. The only real solution is to find it and work with it.” (3 pages)

  6. A Decade of Collocation Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    This analysis of case study research and expert opinion reveals that, almost universally, practitioners who had experience with collocated teams – cross-functional teams whose members share workspace – had a favorable view of the practice and would use it again if given the opportunity. Examples from IBM, Wiremold, TN Technologies, Steelcase, Herman Miller and Black & Decker are cited to illustrate different approaches to collocation. Academic research and expert opinion is cited to define “collocation” and its benefits. This summary of information collected informally over a ten-year period also yielded several best practices discovered by collocation's early adopters and advocates. (5 pages)

  7. DataCard Puts a Structure in Place to Support Concurrent Product Development Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-23

    Spending upwards of 40 percent of their R&D budget fixing already-existing products, and with their core market beginning to shift, DataCard, a credit and debit card personalization company, needed to modernize its approach. DataCard’s leaders decided that they needed to bolster quality, speed up development cycle time, develop greater process rigor, and shift from an engineering-driven to a market-driven focus. In this report on the first four years of a major change initiative, DataCard managers describe what allowed the company to develop fifty products and average more than 17 percent growth in the first four years of the initiative. Three factors are credited with most of the success: 1) the company's core team structure, supported by functional teams; 2) the deployment of significant resources to process facilitation; and 3) strong and visible senior management support. (5 pages)

  8. Flexibility Powers QuantumÂ’s Thunderbolt Team to Market Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-22

    Computer hardware manufacturer, Quantum, discovered that there is a direct correlation between shrinking product life cycles and the need for flexible, effective, quick-response cross-functional teamwork. This report provides an example for how to organize, staff and manage teams as the pace of product lifecycles quickens and as a product portfolio broadens and diversifies over time. (6 pages)

  9. Harvard Business SchoolÂ’s Dorothy Leonard on Knowledge Capture, Igniting Group Creativity and Empathic Design Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-22

    Harvard Business School professor Dorothy Leonard, whose research focuses on creativity, knowledge management, and new product development, sees three areas crucial for innovation. Internally, she says, you should look for ways and means to capture and disseminate the hard-to-get-at tacit knowledge that resides in the depths of your organization. You should also be on the lookout for fresh ways to enhance the creativity of teams. Externally, says Leonard, product developers should observe customers in their own setting – an element of what she terms empathic design. (5 pages)

  10. How to Measure Product Team Efficiency Locked

    Research | Posted: 2004-09-21

    According to product team coach, Bart Huthwaite, product team inefficiency is “the biggest killer of new product success.” How well teams work together is the deciding factor in success or failure. Good team dynamics result in better problem solving, faster decisions, and stronger commitment. Huthwaite presents a simple four-step exercise that allows teams to measure their efficiency, using each team member’s numerical ratings of factors the team agrees are among the most important traits of high-performance teams. This tool, he writes, “surfaces problems early, before they can cause serious trouble, and helps assure management that your team is performing at peak horsepower.” (3 pages)

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6