Day: August 9, 2016

W1_Mubarak_TuckMan_Assesment

W1_Mubarak_TuckMan_Assessment

 

  1. Problem Definition.

Team “OOCEP_PMP 2016” has been established as part of OOCEP Project management program 2016. It is important to know at which stage the team is progressing so that we know the best approach to help the team perform and function in order to meet the goals and align the purposes of the project and help the team maximize its process and its productivity. Tuckman’s assessment will be used in determining the team development stage, behavior of this teamwork and leadership style.

  1. Methodology and Results:

A questionnaire was used by the team to answer 32 questions and to help rank what stage we think the team was on. A total of 10 samples gave us the below results.

  Forming Storming Norming Performing
Min 22 17 25 28
Most Likely 27 21 29 33
Max 28 26 32 37
Mean 26 21 29 33
St. Dev 1 2 1 2
Variance 1 2 1 2
P 90 (Z=1.29) 35 30 39 45

Table 1.

 

  1. Development of the feasible alternatives

In 1965, Bruce Tuckman published four stages of Team Development i.e. Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing to explain the team’s maturity and ability, relationships establish and the leader leadership style.

Forming is the set-up phase where the team is founded. There is no shared history and no work experience together.

Storming is the phase where the team attempts to work together but usually experiences conflicts. At this stage it becomes clear that the team lacks the tools or even agreement on what they want to accomplish together (goals).

Norming is an important stage for learning, planning and decision-making together. The team agrees on a shared goal (or goals), roles and responsibilities.

Performing is the team’s productive stage, where work tasks are accomplished. The team’s efficiency and efficacy improve (Drucker, 1985). The team’s shared success builds a feeling of commitment and trust.

Adjourning is the team’s completion stage, where work tasks are completed and the team is disassembled. The motivation is decline as uncertainty of the future start to set in and this is the best time to introduce new project on re-forming the stage of team development.

Figure 1.The Tuckman Stages of Team Development1

 

  1. Possible solution / alternative

The alternative  solution that OOCEP PMI 2016 team will be  one of the four phases; Forming phase, Storming Phase, Norming Phase or Performing Phase.

  1. Selection of Criteria

Based on the result shown on Table 1 that OOCEP_PMI_2016 team is in Performing stage using Delphi technique with P90.

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

By studying and analyzing of the results shows in table 1, the results point to that the team currently in the performing stage this shows that the team is aware of what they have to do and why it is doing and what it is doing .However, delegation is crucial for the team at this stage in order to accelerate the team dynamic.

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

The selected of the preferred alternative based on the result above required is a delegating type of leadership in which the leader is involve in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group.

 

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

As the team OOCEP_PMI_2016 came from the same company “OOCEP” where they knew each other and have worked with each other’s. It has accelerated the phase movement from Forming to end up in performing. Essential alignment on this project has taken this team through the Forming, Storming, Norming but it been short period of time before they reach the performing phase due to earlier work experience with each other.

After evaluation of results, we should know clearly why it is doing what it is doing it can be include that the team  formed well together as a team keep in a consideration achieving  team goals and objectives .Hence, the delegation leadership style is the appropriate style for the team at this progress stage. An outlooks point of view expected form the team to work in independence where minimum supervision is required from the management.

 

References:

  1. Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing: Understanding the Stages of Team Formation. (n.d.). Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Retrieved June 4, 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
  2. com Stages of Team Development (Tuckman) Retrieved from:http://www.12manage.com/methods_tuckman_stages_team_development.html
  3. org. (2012). Survey: what stage is Your Team In?. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf
  4. Related materials. (n.d.). situational leadership analysis. Retrieved June 4, 2014, fromhttp://www.businessballs.com/slanalysis.htm

W1-Salim (Tuckman)

  1. Introduction and Problem Definition

A Project Management course was conducted on July 31st for 10 candidates from OOCEP. The course was designed to develop the project management skills of the individuals and was broadly divided into face-to-face sessions as well as 12-week distance learning mode. The team background and experience was relatively the same as they come from the same organization and they all located at the OOCEP Head Office, which made the communication and group gatherings very easy, hence accomplishment of the committed tasks did not form a big challenge.

  1. Identify the Feasible Alternative

According to Tuckman, in both group dynamics and the four stages of team development he popularized (forming, storming, norming, performing), leaders must retain the motivation of team members in order to successfully overcome the challenges of the storming and norming stages. See Fig.1

Stages-of-Team-Development

Fig.1 Stages of Team Development

Where;

Forming: Represents the starting period; great expectations are shared from all team members. Relationships are developed, objectives are clear and ground rules are established.

Storming: The stage when the team members start jostling for position, stumbling from confusion, having arguments about leadership, strategy and goals. This is when team leadership becomes imperative. The team leader must succeed at keeping the team motivated, addressing all concerns and clarifying the purpose and goals.

Norming: This is when the storming stage is overcome and the team becomes ready to establish open communications and stable positions. Trust is finally gained and communication becomes instant and effective.

Performing: Is when the teams become cohesive; i.e. when the team member stick together in the pursuit of a common goal. This is the next step in team development after Norming.

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Week-1 blog addresses the team development with reference to and assessment made by the team members themselves in order to determine what phase of Tuckman module they think they are, by simply answering 32 questions developed by Donald Clark. The results of the survey were processed via PERT analysis and are shown in Table 1 below.

# Name Forming Storming Norming Performing
1 Hamood Al Rusheidi 23 21 27 30
2 Abdullah Al Ansari 23 19 31 37
3 Khamis AL Shukhaili 27 26 29 29
4 Mubarak Al Haddabi 22 20 25 31
5 Saud Al Bahri 28 20 28 32
6 Said Al Harrasy 27 22 32 36
7 Nasser Al Julandani 22 17 29 33
8 Salim Al Habsi 25 23 29 32
9 Mamood AL Shamsi 26 21 30 33
10 Talal Al Nahwi 27 18 29 28
Total 250 207 289 321

Table.1 Team Assessment Results

  1. Selection of the Acceptable Criteria

A confidently level of 95% was selected as it is vital for team leaders to identify exactly what sort of management style they should implement and spot any flaws in the team’s performance sooner rather than later. ∴ z value for 95% is 1.65.

Min 22 17 25 28
Most Likely 27 21 29 33
Max 28 26 32 37
Mean 25 21 29 32
St. Dev. 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.5
Variance 1.0 2.3 1.4 2.3
P(95): (z=1.65) 26.65 22.65 30.65 33.65

Table.2 Team Survey Analysis using PERT

  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

As it is clear from the table above team is 95% in performing stage and merely a probability of 5% that it is in any other stage/phase. Despite the short period of five days, the team could pass through most difficult part, storming, relatively quickly. This could be attributed to the fact that alL team members come from the same company country and have common background which formed firm basis of a good performing team.

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Based on the results above, the selection of the preferred alternative is required to be ‘leadership delegation’ whereby the team leader delegates authorities to the Program Manager and Project Manager and focus on the interrelationship and development of the team members.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

The assessment shows that the team is at the ‘Performing’ phase, and order to maintain the team at this level of productivity it is proposed that their performance is reviewed on monthly basis. The Team showed high productivity level in phase 1 through team exercises which supports the results of the assessment.

  1. References

W1_MAH Shamsi_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

  1. Problem Definition

OOCEP decided to launch Project Management course to develop skills of project management to its candidates. The course will have five stages; face to face 1, distance learning, face to face 2, exam and implementation. Therefore, candidates have to focus on achieving two main objectives, which are passing the exam from first attempt (personal) and pay pack to the organization (Return on training investment). Team completed the first phase and start distance-learning phase with first week blog.

oocep-pmp-2016 is name of 10 members who attend first phase. The team size is  moderate which will create a slight challenge with communication and gap in experiences. In addition to that team members came from different background (Drilling, Civil, mechanical) as well as they are from different geographical areas (south and north of oman). All of these challenges will require more effort, time and commitment from team members to achieve their target and complete the project. The first week blog will use Tuckman’s tool to identify the organization model and type of leadership that oocep-pmp-2016  team required.

  1. Identify the Possible Alternative

To study the stages of team development will use Tuckman model of forming, storming, norming and performing. This model of fours stages has been introduced in 1965. Five years later in 1970 Tuckman has added the fifth stage (adjourning).

Table 1

Table 1. Bruce Tuckman Team Development Model [1]

The model above showed how team develops within time and what stages involved in this development till harmonization achieved and project completed. The model also showed how each stage will include different behaviors and task that required different leadership style starting from direction, coaching, facilitating and delegating.

For our team oocep-pmp-2016 will apply Tuckman model.

  1. Development of the Outcome for Alternative 

The team members have been asked to run Tuckman’s survey and answer 32 questions, which designed, by Clark [2]. Then all results of 10 members should be gathered in matter to identify the stage of oocep-pmp-2016 team position.

 # Name Forming Storming Norming Performing
1 Hamood Al Rusheidi 23 21 27 30
2 Abdullah Al Ansari 23 19 31 37
3 Khamis AL Shukhaili 27 26 29 29
4 Mubarak Al Haddabi 22 20 25 31
5 Saud Al Bahri 28 20 28 32
6 Said Al Harrasy 27 22 32 36
7 Nasser Al Julandani 22 17 29 33
8 Salim Al Habsi 25 23 29 32
9 Mamood AL Shamsi 26 21 30 33
10 Talal Al Nahwi 27 18 29 28
Total 250 207 289 321

Table 2. Donald Clark Team Survey Result [2]

The table above showed the results of Tuckman assessment, which conducted by team members. Therefore, Delphi technique with P90 will be used

  1. Selection of Criteria.

Following is the result we had from 10 Team members and has been analyzed by using Delphi Technique 90 (Dr. PDG Day 2 Slide page 45)

Min 22 17 25 28
Most Likely 27 21 29 33
Max 28 26 32 37
Mean 25 21 29 32
St. Dev 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.5
Variance 1.0 2.3 1.4 2.3
P-90 26.29 22.635 30.405 34.035

Table 3. P90 Result with Delphi Technique [3]

Based on the result above oocep-pmp-2016 team is in Performance stage.

  1. Analyses and Comparison of the Alternative.

The results above reflect the nature of group as members came from different background. It seems that members have good experience on project management and proactive for benefit of the team. The team is showing gradual improvement in the first three stages (forming, storming & norming).

  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative.

Oocep-pmp-2016 team ready for delegation model where the leader focuses more on purpose and interrelationship. Program Manager and Project Manager should maintain the team in performance stage.

  1. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.

The development stage of the team oocep-pmp-2016 should be reviewed monthly in order to maintain the team at performing stage. Team showed high harmonization level in phase 1 through team exercises which support the results of the assessment.

 

Reference

  1. Catalyst Consulting (2014). Tuckman Trifold – Accelerating Team Development. Retrieved June 6, 2014 from http://www.catalystonline.com/products/tuckman-team-guides/
  2. org. (2012). Survey: what stage is Your Team In? Retrieved June 6,2014 from

http://www.cscaweb.org/EMS/sector_team/support_files/tools_for_the_team/tool_stage.pdf

  1. Paul D. Giammalvo (2012). PMI certification prep and competency development course, Day 2, Page 45.
  2. W1_MAl Mujaini_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

 

 

W1_ KHAMIS_ Tuckman Assesment

 

 

Step 1- Problem or Opportunity Statement:

OOCEP  “Oman Oil Company Exploration & Production” One of the  OOC subsidiaries companies in Oil Exploration & production. One of its program  to its personnel attanding program management course.   PMI  OOCEP2016 member came from  OOCEP where they have different backgrounds.

The problem in the W1 of the course is how to apply Tuckman tools to identify the situation of the team come from different companies and what type of management is required to manage the team.

Step 2- Develop the “FEASIBLE Alternatives”:

One of the most influential models of teamwork theory was developed in 1965 by Bruce Tuckman. His original model identified four stages that all groups pass through as they move from “newly formed” to “high-performance” teams. In 1977, he revised the model to include a fifth stage. Those stages are Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning:

Stages of Group Development

Forming

During the Forming stage, members of the project team meet each other and learn about the tasks they will need to perform.

Storming

The Storming stage is characterized by interpersonal issues such as conflict and polarization.

Norming

As conflicts become less intense and the team members begin to understand and accept each other, the team will gradually move into the Norming stage.

Performing

In the Performing stage, team members are comfortable with each other and group norms have been accepted.

Adjourning

As the project comes to an end, the team moves into the Adjourning stage.

Step 3- Develop the Outcomes for Each Alternative:

Based on the survey given to the PMI OOCEP2016 team to identify the position of in the Tuckman’s model. The below table show the result for each team member:

# Name Forming Storming Norming Performing
1 Hamood Al Rusheidi 23 21 27 30
2 Abdullah Al Ansari 23 19 31 37
3 Khamis AL Shukhaili 27 26 29 29
4 Mubarak Al Haddabi 22 20 25 31
5 Saud Al Bahri 28 20 28 32
6 Said Al Harrasy 27 22 32 36
7 Nasser Al Julandani 22 17 29 33
8 Salim Al Habsi 25 23 29 32
9 Mamood AL Shamsi 26 21 30 33
10 Talal Al Nahwi 27 18 29 28
Total 250 207 289 321

 

 

The above table shown the result have wider range  of data. Delphi technique with Probability of 70 is decided to be used to identify PMI OOCEP2016 team in which stage based on Tuckman model .

 

Step 4- Selection of the Acceptable Criteria:

The below table shown the result with P70 using Delphi technique

Min 22 17 25 28
Most Likely 27 21 29 33
Max 28 26 32 37
Mean 26 21 29 33
St. Dev 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.5
Variance 1.0 2.3 1.4 2.3
P-70 26.86333 21.96167 29.45167 33.62833

Note: The Z factor is .53 from Standard Z table

The above table clearly shown that PMI OOCEP 2016 team still in forming stage .

Step 5- Compare and Analyses the Alternative:

The highest score is in the forming stage, and it is a good indication since the project is started last week and we are in the forming stage.

Step 6- Selection of the Preferred Alternative:

As we found in the previous step; forming stage is required leadership with telling style as Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model. The Leader should specifically instruct subordinates what to do and how to do it. The leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task.

Step 7-Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result:

PMI OOCEP 2016 still in the forming stage and it is required to monitoring the project team monthly to check if there are any improvement in the works and deliverables of the individual member.

Reference:

http://managementpocketbooks.wordpress.com/tag/tuckmans-stages-of-group-development/

http://creatingminds.org/tools/delphi.htm

http://www.project-management-skills.com/teamwork-theory.html