Anne Livingston joined the Power Player Software team. There were 22 engineers, all whom reported to one (supervisor), 18 Caucasian males, 3 Caucasian females and one female color with 80% of them previous Power Max experience. The team was expected to grow in the next several months. Livingston drew a couple conclusions about the team. One, the team tended to hire those who have been apart of Power Max, thus limiting creativity, and thought into product wants of the customer. Two, the supervisor’s (Murray) personal relationship with some members on the team, impacted the supervisor and others. The supervisor could not make important decisions of the fear of offending one of their friends, therefore, a long list of priorities and no one making the decisions. Third, many members of the team had leadership capabilities. It seem like no individual tasks were handed out, mostly just a lot of chiefs. Fourth, when looking to recruit away from the norm, the team grew weary of hiring a minority. When the hiring process was complete, the new hire, a Chinese heritage, was possibly going to turn down the job, based on his gut feeling of how the group would respond to him being part of the team. The supervisor wondered if she in good faith could offer him the job.
Critique: To answer the question at the end, no! Murray, who is the supervisor, lacks leadership qualities. She should not be in charge of the Power Player team. Not begin able to make decisions, because of your personal relationships is not a leader. The article mentioned four different types of members on the team. Some could be considered team players, some individuals. Each person on the team needs to feel a part of it. Murray needed to find, (by knowing) each team members strengths, and focus there. She needed to eliminate the list of priorities, so the team can focus on one at a time. One of the team members, “the hero” did this and got the team back on track. They also needed to bring people on board not from the company, maybe educated customers? Someone from the outside? I did think that Murray did a good job going out side the Caucasian group to get a more diverse team to meet a diverse consumer product. However, by lack of her leadership characteristics, she did not achieve this goal. Lastly, I did notice the article shifted from a team to a group. This was definitely a group and not a team. Too big for one, no collaboration, no team management, and not everyone on the team belonged. This easily relates to school management in all aspects.
Honeywell’s transition to team dynamics in the 1980s is revealed in the MOD IV Product Development Team article. The reasons for developing a team-work dynamic came from recognizing changes in competition, technology and customer needs, as well as a concern over profit margin. The team members, in particular the director of marketing, the lead design engineer and the General Manager of Honeywell’s Building Controls Division, recounted the progress and concerns of the MOD IV Team.
What Honeywell did well? First, they supported the idea of restructure by dividing the Residential and Building Division into two separate entities, creating the opportunity to think about work in a new way. Honeywell built new facilities to house engineering, manufacturing and market/sales together. The new Building Controls Division (BCD) worked to eliminate any physical barriers within the new facilities and created a regular weekly team meeting time, which all team members attended. The Team, of seven, worked to create a “parallel” development strategy. The General Manager and the different senior members of the team acknowledged the significance of leading by example and their own need to let the process happen, even though this style of managing was contrary to their training and nature. Personal reflection on their role and responsibility to this new endeavor are evident.
There were significant pieces missing in this transition that created stress. The company/division utilized “parallel” development to stack a variety of projects on people rather than allowing a team to focus on one project to closure. There was a concern that more was required, without time or compensation, under this new way of doing work. The team did not set short- term goals to mark and honor/reward the progress made and make necessary adjustments. This would have helped especially when it was discovered that the team members were interpreting communication and the project’s goals differently. There was a sense that not all team members were on-board with the mission (need) to create a better motor. This speaks to having a common vision. The team dynamics were further strained by the structure, which had a strong marketing contingency (four members) and could have used more input from manufacturing (one member) and engineering for problem solving.
All in all, the Honeywell MOD IV Product Development Team Article was supportive of the idea of teaming and ability of a company’s structure to change. It supports the ideas of equity of team members, diversity of ideas and the establishment of a renewed community of work weaving the three components of engineering, manufacturing and marketing. This article does speak to some of the ways in which we try to establish teams from above and manage the transitions in education. Are the teams we create balanced for the work that needs to be done? Are we willing to adjust our teams after they have been established – to strengthen the team? Do our leaders reflect on their role and their need to support the process as the team creates the work to be done? The need to clarify and agree upon our mission and vision statements needs to be paramount. Are we carrying different visions for our schools and students? We need to state our goals with manageable objectives. Do we budget time to ensure that we are communicating and achieving the goals that we agreed upon and not various independent interpretations?
Basically this case study is about the Honeywell Building Controls Division planning to introduce a new product in the 1980’s. The product they were introducing was the MOD IV, a motor used in heating, ventilating and air conditioning and the product team was trying to stay on schedule. Linda Whitman, the senior marketing director for the MOD IV was the main person who had primary profit and loss responsibility. There were also other teams that had major responsibilities as well. She had seen her teams work through problems and conflicts before but, she knew something else had to be done in order for this product to stay on schedule and be profitable. There were three main divisions (marketing and sales production, design engineering and design manufacturing) that she had to bring together. All the teams seemed over burdened and time unresponsive. These teams were basically separate entities of the company when it came to product production. Marketers conceived a product idea passed it along to design engineers who passed it on to process engineers then dropped the plans into the laps of the manufacturing engineer. At each stage in sequence, people encountered problems created by work done at an earlier stage. When one group completed a particular piece of the project, they would toss it over the wall to the next group. This was very time consuming a costly way to produce. Every change meant more time, higher costs, and higher animosity between functional areas. There had to be a change!!!! Honeywell BCD abandoned sequential development and embraced a new process of team work called “parallel development.” In this system, a core team of people assembled from the three critical functions, manufacturing, market/sales, and engineering worked together to guide a project from conceptual stage all the way through to final production. The core teams guided and tracked the development, coordinating efforts across functions and addressed issues of mutual concern. A program manager secured resources for the team, orchestrated its work, kept an eye on complete project and served as liaison to senior managers. It forced people to look at the bigger picture not just there own part. Each area had to see itself as equal partner and contributor which increased responsibilities from beginning to end. On an ending note, there was a big resurgence in the company and it was attributed to the new working relationships that now existed between different functional groups. The company still had to work out some other minor problems but overall the team was on track once again. I thought this case study was fairly interesting. It seems to me that if you were running a big company with outcome based revenue you would have to put together the best teams you can. The highest priority would be project quality with team members each doing there individual parts. Without communication, collaboration, and accommodation, things can fall apart at the seams. I think that if people come together with open minds and great effort, problems will get solved. I know there are many intricacies, ups and downs in team driven companies but just look at what parallel development did for Honeywell. Resurgence after the fall.
The company seemed well organized and its employee duties clearly defined. Very little conflict resolution was happening due to the the fact that that every detail regarding work was overly compartmentalized. This led to conflicts not being adequately resolved. Competetion was strong and led to a high level of professional pressure. An expect-ation of a high level of return on investment was strongly evident. Roles for employees had expanded and changed and they were struggling to adapt to the new demands.
Their business plans/models seemed logical and well organized. Projections were being made for upcoming needs, including time-lines of what was expected for project deadlines and manufactur-ing outcomes.
Parallel development was used to ensure success in three critical areas: manufacturing, marketing or sales, and engineering. All of these formed a core team that guided project development,and were led by a program manager. The program was focused on development of big picture type ideas. The timeline for its growth period became longer than originally expected and people had difficulty adjusting, even with additional time allotted. They lost their focus at the very end. I would have recommended bringing in a change in representation for teamn building and possibly changing employment/positions.
The Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning controls (HVAC) is one of the Honeywell Building Controls (BCD)’s four product areas. In 1989 HVAC controls was pitching a multimillion project on the Mod IV--- an advanced motor used in HVAC applications. It was envisioned as “Golden Egg” by a senior manager because it was a main pitch of the company, and once it was ready to produce and successfully introduced into the market, it would account for 30% of the division’s profits. The central issue revolved around the division’s product development team and their commitment to meet the schedule. This led to multiple lower-level issues, such as communication disparity among various groups, mistiming in changing the team
6 comments:
Anne Livingston joined the Power Player Software team. There were 22 engineers, all whom reported to one (supervisor), 18 Caucasian males, 3 Caucasian females and one female color with 80% of them previous Power Max experience. The team was expected to grow in the next several months. Livingston drew a couple conclusions about the team. One, the team tended to hire those who have been apart of Power Max, thus limiting creativity, and thought into product wants of the customer. Two, the supervisor’s (Murray) personal relationship with some members on the team, impacted the supervisor and others. The supervisor could not make important decisions of the fear of offending one of their friends, therefore, a long list of priorities and no one making the decisions. Third, many members of the team had leadership capabilities. It seem like no individual tasks were handed out, mostly just a lot of chiefs. Fourth, when looking to recruit away from the norm, the team grew weary of hiring a minority. When the hiring process was complete, the new hire, a Chinese heritage, was possibly going to turn down the job, based on his gut feeling of how the group would respond to him being part of the team. The supervisor wondered if she in good faith could offer him the job.
Critique: To answer the question at the end, no! Murray, who is the supervisor, lacks leadership qualities. She should not be in charge of the Power Player team. Not begin able to make decisions, because of your personal relationships is not a leader. The article mentioned four different types of members on the team. Some could be considered team players, some individuals. Each person on the team needs to feel a part of it. Murray needed to find, (by knowing) each team members strengths, and focus there. She needed to eliminate the list of priorities, so the team can focus on one at a time. One of the team members, “the hero” did this and got the team back on track. They also needed to bring people on board not from the company, maybe educated customers? Someone from the outside? I did think that Murray did a good job going out side the Caucasian group to get a more diverse team to meet a diverse consumer product. However, by lack of her leadership characteristics, she did not achieve this goal. Lastly, I did notice the article shifted from a team to a group. This was definitely a group and not a team. Too big for one, no collaboration, no team management, and not everyone on the team belonged. This easily relates to school management in all aspects.
Honeywell’s transition to team dynamics in the 1980s is revealed in the MOD IV Product Development Team article. The reasons for developing a team-work dynamic came from recognizing changes in competition, technology and customer needs, as well as a concern over profit margin. The team members, in particular the director of marketing, the lead design engineer and the General Manager of Honeywell’s Building Controls Division, recounted the progress and concerns of the MOD IV Team.
What Honeywell did well? First, they supported the idea of restructure by dividing the Residential and Building Division into two separate entities, creating the opportunity to think about work in a new way. Honeywell built new facilities to house engineering, manufacturing and market/sales together. The new Building Controls Division (BCD) worked to eliminate any physical barriers within the new facilities and created a regular weekly team meeting time, which all team members attended. The Team, of seven, worked to create a “parallel” development strategy. The General Manager and the different senior members of the team acknowledged the significance of leading by example and their own need to let the process happen, even though this style of managing was contrary to their training and nature. Personal reflection on their role and responsibility to this new endeavor are evident.
There were significant pieces missing in this transition that created stress. The company/division utilized “parallel” development to stack a variety of projects on people rather than allowing a team to focus on one project to closure. There was a concern that more was required, without time or compensation, under this new way of doing work. The team did not set short- term goals to mark and honor/reward the progress made and make necessary adjustments. This would have helped especially when it was discovered that the team members were interpreting communication and the project’s goals differently. There was a sense that not all team members were on-board with the mission (need) to create a better motor. This speaks to having a common vision. The team dynamics were further strained by the structure, which had a strong marketing contingency (four members) and could have used more input from manufacturing (one member) and engineering for problem solving.
All in all, the Honeywell MOD IV Product Development Team Article was supportive of the idea of teaming and ability of a company’s structure to change. It supports the ideas of equity of team members, diversity of ideas and the establishment of a renewed community of work weaving the three components of engineering, manufacturing and marketing. This article does speak to some of the ways in which we try to establish teams from above and manage the transitions in education. Are the teams we create balanced for the work that needs to be done? Are we willing to adjust our teams after they have been established – to strengthen the team? Do our leaders reflect on their role and their need to support the process as the team creates the work to be done? The need to clarify and agree upon our mission and vision statements needs to be paramount. Are we carrying different visions for our schools and students? We need to state our goals with manageable objectives. Do we budget time to ensure that we are communicating and achieving the goals that we agreed upon and not various independent interpretations?
Kelly Porter
MOD IV case study response
Basically this case study is about the Honeywell Building Controls Division planning to introduce a new product in the 1980’s. The product they were introducing was the MOD IV, a motor used in heating, ventilating and air conditioning and the product team was trying to stay on schedule. Linda Whitman, the senior marketing director for the MOD IV was the main person who had primary profit and loss responsibility. There were also other teams that had major responsibilities as well. She had seen her teams work through problems and conflicts before but, she knew something else had to be done in order for this product to stay on schedule and be profitable. There were three main divisions (marketing and sales production, design engineering and design manufacturing) that she had to bring together. All the teams seemed over burdened and time unresponsive. These teams were basically separate entities of the company when it came to product production. Marketers conceived a product idea passed it along to design engineers who passed it on to process engineers then dropped the plans into the laps of the manufacturing engineer. At each stage in sequence, people encountered problems created by work done at an earlier stage. When one group completed a particular piece of the project, they would toss it over the wall to the next group. This was very time consuming a costly way to produce. Every change meant more time, higher costs, and higher animosity between functional areas. There had to be a change!!!!
Honeywell BCD abandoned sequential development and embraced a new process of team work called “parallel development.” In this system, a core team of people assembled from the three critical functions, manufacturing, market/sales, and engineering worked together to guide a project from conceptual stage all the way through to final production. The core teams guided and tracked the development, coordinating efforts across functions and addressed issues of mutual concern. A program manager secured resources for the team, orchestrated its work, kept an eye on complete project and served as liaison to senior managers. It forced people to look at the bigger picture not just there own part. Each area had to see itself as equal partner and contributor which increased responsibilities from beginning to end. On an ending note, there was a big resurgence in the company and it was attributed to the new working relationships that now existed between different functional groups. The company still had to work out some other minor problems but overall the team was on track once again.
I thought this case study was fairly interesting. It seems to me that if you were running a big company with outcome based revenue you would have to put together the best teams you can. The highest priority would be project quality with team members each doing there individual parts. Without communication, collaboration, and accommodation, things can fall apart at the seams. I think that if people come together with open minds and great effort, problems will get solved. I know there are many intricacies, ups and downs in team driven companies but just look at what parallel development did for Honeywell. Resurgence after the fall.
Mod IV Response
The company seemed well organized and its employee duties clearly defined. Very little conflict resolution was happening due to the the fact that that every detail regarding work was overly compartmentalized. This led to conflicts not being adequately resolved. Competetion was strong and led to a high level of professional pressure. An expect-ation of a high level of return on investment was strongly evident. Roles for employees had expanded and changed and they were struggling to adapt to the new demands.
Their business plans/models seemed logical and well organized. Projections were being made for upcoming needs, including time-lines of what was expected for project deadlines and manufactur-ing outcomes.
Parallel development was used to ensure success in three critical areas: manufacturing, marketing or sales, and engineering. All of these formed a core team that guided project development,and
were led by a program manager. The program was focused on development of big picture type ideas. The timeline for its growth period became longer than originally expected and people had difficulty adjusting, even with additional time allotted. They lost their focus at the very end. I would have recommended bringing in a change in representation for teamn building and possibly changing employment/positions.
The Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning controls (HVAC) is one of the Honeywell Building Controls (BCD)’s four product areas. In 1989 HVAC controls was pitching a multimillion project on the Mod IV--- an advanced motor used in HVAC applications. It was envisioned as “Golden Egg” by a senior manager because it was a main pitch of the company, and once it was ready to produce and successfully introduced into the market, it would account for 30% of the division’s profits. The central issue revolved around the division’s product development team and their commitment to meet the schedule. This led to multiple lower-level issues, such as communication disparity among various groups, mistiming in changing the team
Post a Comment