March 2000
Volume 2 • Number 2
Contents
Resource Reviews
SOFTWARE QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules
Steve C. McConnell. 1996. Seattle, Wash.: Microsoft Press.
647 pages.
Teamwork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go Wrong
Carl E. Larson and Frank M. LaFasto. 1989. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage. 152 pages.
Reviewed by Dan Zrymiak, A.L.I. Technologies Inc.
An important concept in contemporary business management
involves the development and coordination of teams. Every
organization wants to reap the benefits of cooperation and
collaboration in order to expand the capabilities of their
employees. Countless studies have shown that the effectiveness
of teams is superior to the effectiveness of individual employees.
Steve McConnell’s book, Rapid Development, is
intended to help companies complete their projects in a manner
that reduces development times, reduces product deficiencies,
and expands opportunities for competitiveness and profitability.
Not surprisingly, a significant portion of this book is dedicated
to developing and coordinating employee teams.
One item in particular is the study adapted from Teamwork
by Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto. This study establishes the
premise that the nature and behavior of the team should reflect
its broad objectives. There are common characteristics to
effective teams that must be present in all situations. Larson
and LeFasto have identified four factors that contribute to
team success:
- Clear roles and accountabilities
- Monitoring of individual performance and feedback
- Effective communication
- Fact-based decision making.
This is consistent with the plan-do-check-act cycle of continuous
improvement. In the case of team structures, it is vital to
clearly define the entry and exit criteria, communicate these
criteria, and apply objective information to the direction
of the team. This method not only optimizes the capabilities
of the team, it removes the personal biases that may distract
or undermine superior performance. By keeping the influence
of negative human dynamics to a minimum, the team can progress
and achieve its objectives according to its abilities.
To summarize, teams are like tools; they serve a function
to address a specific situation. Like any tool, the team structure
has a limited scope of capability and effectiveness. There
are three global objectives outlined for team establishment:
1) problem resolution; 2) creativity; and 3) tactical execution.
The problem-resolution team is assembled with the
intention of resolving a complex, poorly defined problem.
Often, these teams are expected to work in circumstances of
high expectations, limited resources, and frequent distractions.
The dominant feature of this team is trust, and the process
emphasis is to focus on the prioritized issues. Individuals
who would be most effective in this team structure can be
characterized as being street smart, people sensitive, and
adaptable fixers.
The creativity team is assembled with the intention
of exploring new possibilities and alternatives to a situation.
The environment can be more conducive to effective performance.
The dominant feature of this team is autonomy, and the process
emphasis is to pursue knowledge and obtain conclusions. Individuals
who would be most effective in this team structure can be
characterized as being creative, autonomous, tenacious, and
independent thinkers.
The tactical-execution team is assembled with the
intention of implementing a well-defined plan. These teams
are not expected to break new ground or correct outstanding
issues but to execute highly focused tasks within clearly
defined roles. The dominant feature of this team is clarity,
and the process emphasis is to complete the objectives in
a manner that clearly indicates success or failure. Individuals
who would be most effective in this team structure can be
characterized as being committed, action-oriented, responsive,
and urgent executioners.
From these defined team structures, one can estimate the
impact of each team on a particular situation. For example,
if the team is not aligned with its appropriate objective,
the results can be disastrous, even if the individuals are
competent and committed to the success of the initiative.
In fact, the wrong team might inflict more harm on the situation
just by doing what it does best.
In many companies, different teams are required to interact
with each other. The nature of these teams must be considered
in the integration process, or else there will be problems
with communication and productivity. An example of this gap
can be demonstrated when a company’s design department
must collaborate with the production department to get the
new product to market. The mentality of the design team (creativity)
is not aligned with that of the production team (tactical
execution). As a result, information is misinterpreted, priorities
are confused, and effective collaboration is undermined.
It is the responsibility of quality professionals to act
as “interpreters” to facilitate communication. This
does not imply that the individuals on the respective teams
are incompetent or uncooperative. It implies that different
teams have different mentalities. These mentalities have to
be recognized, addressed, and accommodated in order to harmonize
the efforts of all teams involved.
Another implication of this study is to interpret how a
professional can function on multiple teams of different personalities.
Using a quality manager as an example, it is reasonable to
expect this individual to be part of all three teams. As a
member of the quality department, the quality manager is part
of the problem resolution team and must interact in this capacity.
As a “de facto” authority on process control, the
quality manager is part of the tactical execution of the company,
attempting to continuously improve the company’s activities.
Finally, as a member of the company’s management team,
the quality manager must address the long-term goals and objectives
of the company with creativity and tenacity.
Employees are more effective and productive as team members
than as individuals. The nature of team development, coordination,
and management allows for flexibility so that the most appropriate
team can be used in any situation to achieve any desired objective.
With this knowledge, managers can apply their human resources
more effectively and interact with other teams more productively.
Teams that contain the key success criteria (clear roles and
accountabilities, monitoring of individual performance and
feedback, effective communication, fact-based decision making)
will have the best chance of achieving their intended purpose.
