Success and Failures of Group Individual Decision-Making on Project Management - Coursework Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2012 Executive Summary The report evaluates the effectiveness of group decision making and individual decision making in project management. The arguments raised give an indication that both group decision making and individual decision making can result to arriving at positive decisions making in the lifecycle of a project. The report however backs the adoption of group decision making based on the fact that quality decisions can actually be arrived at using teams, as opposed to the context of individual decision making. This is because when the ideas of many individuals are integrated there is a great probability that the final decision arrived at by the project team will be of good quality as compared to individual decision making. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Effectivenes of Group Decision Making in projects 3 3.0 Effectivenss of Individual Decision making in projects 5 4.0Cases of Success and Failures of Group Decision making 6-7 5.0 Cases of Success and Failures of Group Individual Decision making 7-9 6.0.1 Reasons why group decsion making can/can’t work 10 7.0 How to make Group Decsion making wotk 11 8.0 Conclusion 12 References………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Introduction Decision making is a significant element in the lifecycle of any particular project. In the event that faulty decisions are made, the project can incur huge financial implications. In addition other negative consequences include wasted resources, demoralization of the project team and missed opportunities. Decision making is therefore a critical element in managing projects and also accomplishing the objectives of the project. It is also essential to take note of the fact that the effectiveness of projects is partly influenced by how people fit in and give their contribution to the success of the project. This implies that synergies should exist in group decision making as compared to individual decision making. Yet again, in despite of the fact that decisions made by groups can enhance the success of a project, individual decision making can still be conceptualized as beneficial to the project. This particular report therefore seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of group and individual decision making in project management. Effectiveness of group decision making in projects According to Pinto et al (1993), cross functional teams are very significant in enabling the implementation of projects successfully. Many organizations are progressively utilizing cross functional teams in order to boost their competitive advantage. This particular move has been influenced by the awareness that in order to implement the many projects that an organization undertakes, there is need for cooperation between individuals that from different functional areas. In essence, the most suitable strategy for organizational development is one that comes from experimental bases of a group employee’s (Brown and Harvey, 2006). Pinto et al (1993) undertook a study to evaluate the impact of four antecedent constructs (formalized procedures and rules, physical proximity, superordinate goals and accessibility) on the achievement of the outlined project outcomes and cross functional cooperation. Through the application of path analysis, the findings of the study revealed that the four variables; formalized procedures and rules, physical proximity, superordinate goals and accessibility, have a significant indirect and direct impact on the outcomes of the project, through the influence or effect of cross functional cooperation. In addition, cross-functional cooperation was an essential predictor of both the required task to be accomplished and the psychosocial outcomes of the project. In general the study by Pinto et al (1993) propagated the notion that the decisions made by cross functional teams are actually effective in the successful implementation of projects. Kerzner, (2006) on the other hand utilizes the systems approach in the justification of the usefulness of group decision making in project management. Kerzner, (2006) highlights that management systems school which states that; management, which is a rational approach of decision making, is characterized by a systems model whereby input, processing and output have to coordinate in order to attain the desired objectives. Consequently in the process of project management the input of project teams should be integrated in decision making. According to Kerzner, (2006) the project manager does not have unilateral authority in the making of decisions concerning the project. He frequently has to negotiate his views with those of the functional manager. In addition the views of other project team members must also be integrated. Kerzner, (2006) therefore argues that in order to effectively attain the objectives of the project group decision making is relevant. Chapman (1998) highlights that; group decision making is an effective way of identifying and also assessing risks. Risk is an inevitable part of any particular project. In addition the overall procedures of project risk analysis and also management have the biggest impact on the entire project. Consequently, Chapman (1998) argues that in order to undertake effective risk analysis, it essential to integrate the judgments of the core team members of the project. The manner in which these judgments are collected is a principle factor in the effectiveness and value of the entire process. Chapman (1998) therefore undertook a study to evaluate the effectiveness or efficiency of working as a group in risk identification and assessment. Chapman (1998) adopted the model of evaluating the effectiveness of groups in decision making, as proposed by Charles Handy. The model entailed using techniques such as brain storming, the Delphi approach and normal group discussion techniques. The findings of the study revealed that by adopting such methods the groups were able to quickly identify risk and the ways in which the risk can be managed. Kerzner, (2006) also argues that group decision making is also effective in reacting quickly and solving problems that may arise during the project cycle. Kerzner, (2006) highlights that; these can be done through the use of group decision making whereby people with the most knowledge are given a chance to evaluate the problem. In addition these people should be accorded decision making responsibility and authority. Effectiveness of Individual decision making in projects Ewejea et al (2012) highlights that the decisions made by a project manager individually can bring about an important effect on the strategic value developed by mega projects. According to Ewejea et al (2012), these decisions are usually influenced by the level of control that mangers have over the project. Ewejea et al (2012) undertook a study to by conducting a global survey of 69 project managers who were involved in grand projects. The study also utilized theories of decision making and also organizational behavior theories. The findings of the study revealed that the extent to which managers feel in control of the project influences the decisions they make. As a result the decisions they make become beneficial to the project, through creating of strategic value. Individual decisions are also effective essentially when it comes to arriving at the desired solution in a faster manner. It is widely recognized that when people work and make decisions as a group, divergent points of views and interests do arise. The divergent views arise due to the fact that people have varied orientations towards the goals of the project. In addition the team members may be from different functional areas which may lead to difficulty in arriving at the required solution or decision (Pinto et al, 1993). On the other hand, when project decisions are made individually settling on a solution is much easier. Cases which illustrate the success and failures of group decision making in projects Successful Case of group decision making in projects IP technology project By Telstra On 2006, August Telstra uncovered an IP technology project that was to cost 50 million dollars. The project involved the establishment of a state of the art- Laboratory that was to test internet Protocol (IP). The application was to be delivered to roughly 5.3 consumers. Global partners of the company such as Cisco, Alcatel, Tellabs, and Juniper were also involved in the project. Group discussions where held by various groups from the five companies. Mr. Greg Winn, the then Chief operations manager specified that the objective of the project was to enhance promptness of operational services while making a reduction on the commercial and technical risks that are linked to the solutions for network transformation. The project depended on operational systems and a set of networks that permit joint collaboration of Telstra /Alcatel-Lucent in offering network solutions. The project was successful in the sense that many objectives were attained. For instance the laboratory currently assists in ensuring that Telstra provides innovative services and products with unprecedented robust and reliability The chief operations officer of the organization also acknowledges the fact that the invented laboratory is able to support production through the utilization of network systems and technologies, that back the existing operational environment (Tim 2009). Failed Case of Group decision making in projects One of the largest Australian Utility companies developed a project initiative that would offer IT support for tracking activities and capturing issues within its internet Service provider sections. The project was developed with an objective reducing the chances of occurrence of legal issues that would face the company and to promote the idea of social performance. Walker (2000) highlights; that the project was actually not successful. The basic reason was that the stakeholder group had a lot of conflict of interest. The initial project manager was then replaced with one who was believed to have much more experience. However the new project manager could not resolve the conflict of interest that existed among the stakeholder group. Although the project was finalized it actually did fail. This is because it did not meet the expectations of the stakeholders, an over budget was experienced and the project also went beyond the outlined timelines. The project manager described what he went through as very stressful (Walker, 2000). Successful Case of Individual decision making in projects A young Australian project manager in the construction industry was assigned to work on his first project in Asia. The project entailed fixing a complex multi-vendor. The project was highly visible however it was experiencing the challenge of lack of cohesion, budget overruns, lack of leadership and proper scheduling. The manager’s experience was quite stressful because he had to resolve the many problems facing the project. This is because the progress of the project was hindered by conflicts that came from cultural misunderstanding that exited between the two delivery groups. One group was composed of business analysts and the other consisted of technical contractors. The methods and visions supported by both groups conflicted a lot. Furthermore, no clear leadership or decision making for the project seemed to exist. Each group wanted to implement what they believed in. The Australian project manager analyzed the scenario and selected an option that would provide the best outcome for the project. Eventually, the project was able to deliver according to the outlined objectives and user satisfaction (Bourne, 2000). Failed Case of Individual decision making in projects The construction of the Denver International Airport Baggage handling project in the 1990’s is an exemplary example of how individual decision making can result to the failure of a project. The project which was to be one of the worlds biggest project of automated baggage handling, turned out to be a classical example of what makes technology projects go wrong. A major factor of the failure was contributed in the reliance of the decisions made by an expert known as Walter Slinger. Slinger was the chief airports engineer whose views dominated the project. Callem consulting Ltd(2008) highlights that as a civil engineer , Slinger was only familiar with the development of physical structures and buildings rather then technology systems as a result the decisions he made lead to the to underestimation of the mathematical requirements of the project. Also Singer was reported to be a hands –on type of leader who tackled problems alone. As a result Singer was inclined to make decisions by himself, as opposed to searching independent advice (Callem consulting Ltd, 2008). Eventually, the project did not attain its intended objectives. Reasons why group decision making can/ can’t work Some of the reasons why group decision making cannot work include; Conflict, which is a dominant challenges of group decision making. Conflict is usually inevitable based on the fact that each team member hold a different view point. However what is essential is for the conflict to be productive as opposed to being destructive. Brodie, (2011) highlights that; when conflict is effectively utilized it can result to achieving better results and enhancing creativity among the team members. Disengagement is another challenge of group decision making. This occurs when certain members of the group are holding back in taking part in team activities or they do not want to contribute their opinions to the task (Brodie, 2011). Silo thinking is another challenge. This is when the team members view issues using their own varied view points which may further cause conflict in terms of proper reasoning that can benefit the accomplishment of the task (Brodie, 2011). Uneven communication is also another challenge which occurs when there are certain team members who dominates the process of communication, leaving other members to be dormant this may result to a scenario whereby only a single view point is adopted which may further fail the project (Brodie, 2011). Why group decision making can Work Group decision making can work because it leads to the making of innovative and quality decisions. When the ideas of many individuals are brought together it is possible that the final outcome of the project will be of quality. In addition the thoughts of the various members of the group can be integrated in order to come up with innovative ideas (Scaife, 2004). Making decisions as a group also assists in improving commitment and motivation of the team members towards working to achieve the objectives of the project. This is because group decision making enables individual group members to increase their level of commitment to the task based on the fact that their ideas are integrated in the project. As a result, attaining the objectives of the project becomes much easier. How to make group decision work in project One of the strategies that can be used to make group decisions work in a project is through the use of computer technology. Zigurs et al (1988) highlights that an increasing number of research has proven that group decision support system (GDSS), has provided evidence that computer technology does and can influence the quality of decisions that are made by a groups. Group Decision Support Systems are computer- based systems that are concerned with group communication and how it can be improved. The GDSS, system enables a closer evaluation of the group process, by evaluating the impacts of a computer system on the quality of decisions made by the group, or the censuses and also the outcomes of the group. In an empirical study which involved the application of the GDSS in groups and also having another group that was not supported by GDSS, Zigurs et al (1988) discovered that the system influenced the decision making behaviour of members of the group as a result influencing better quality decisions by the group. The creation of cross-functional cooperation is also another essential aspect in making group discussion work in projects. As highlighted by Pinto et al (1993) cross functional cooperation is an essential aspect in creating a cooperative environment or mood among group members. As a result the team members can work collaborative, share their ideas in order to attain not only the visible objectives of the project but also the psychosocial outcomes of the project. The creation of cross-functional cooperation will result to a scenario whereby the group members are able to share information and also acknowledge the view points and contributions of each other In order for successful group discussion to be created in a project, it is essential to also develop synergism. Synergism arises when the interaction between the team members is able to encourage and empower the team members to achieve the overall objective of the team. Conclusion The above report has presented varied viewpoints concerning the effectiveness of group and individual decision making. Some of the areas highlighted to support effectiveness of group decision making include; enabling the implementation of projects successfully, effective attainment of objective and also risk analysis. On the other hand individual decision making has been backed by the fact that it can bring about important effect on the strategic value of the project, in addition arriving at the desired solution is much faster. The report has also presented various scenarios where both individual and group decision making have worked. In conclusion, this report proposes that depending on the nature of the project, effective decision making should occur through consultation and group decision making is more prolific. References Brown, D & Harvey, D 2006, An experiential approach to organizational development, Pearson Education.(book) Bourne, L, 2000, ‘’What does a project manager need to deliver successful project; Case study of 2 Groups ‘’Project Management Leadership, 4(1), p 5-6.(Journal) Retrieved18 August From Brodie, D, 2011, Team Working: Common Challenges. (Online source) Chapman, R, 1998, ‘’The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment techniques, International Journal of Project Management’’ 16( 6). (Journal) Callem consulting Ltd, 2008, Case Study- Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System , an illustration of ineffectual decision making . Retrieved18 August From(Online source) Ewejea, J, Turnerb, R and Müllerc, R, 2012, ‘’Maximizing strategic value from megaprojects: The influence of information-feed on decision-making by the project manager’’. International Journal of Project Management, 30, ( 6) ,p 639–651. (Journal) Kerzner, H , 2006, Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. (Book) Pinto MB, Pinto, J and Prescott, J , 1993, Antecedents and Consequence of Project Team Cross-functional Cooperation Management Science , 39( 10), p 1281.( Journal) Scaife , R, 2004, Best practice Guidance on Team working and safety, Prism . (Book) Zigurs, L, Poole, S, DeSanctis, G, 1988, A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making, MIS Quarterly, 12(4), p. 625-644. .( Journal) Tim, L, 2009, Inside Telstra's Virtualisation Strategy. Need to cut infrastructure costs driving the strategy, CIO.( Online source) Walker , D, 2000, ‘’Client /customer or stakeholder focus .A case study of the construction industry ‘’ The TQM magazine, 12(1),p18-25. (Magazine ) Read More