During my 15 years in the corporate world, I have seen several instances where projects fail just because it was managed by a cross functional team. I find that the projects always succeed when it has one leader and a good champion from the top management instead of a whole cross functional team to support.

The author of this article claims that he has studied cross-functional teams in industries such as communications, software, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, agricultural, chemical, manufacturers, retail, utility, consulting, internet software, government, insurance, and banking and have found a strong correlation between the minority of successful projects and their oversight by a high-level team that was itself cross-functional. The article also states that projects that had a single high level executive champion had a 76 % success rate.

In a detailed study of 95 teams in 25 leading companies, the researchers have found that almost 75% of the cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. The cross functional teams seems to be failing on several criteria such as meeting budget, target dates, specifications customer expectations and aligning with the companies strategies.

The article claims that the main reason for the dysfunction is the team members working in silos. People in a cross functional team usually don’t work well with each other because they have completely different expertise and background. The solution recommended is to create a “Portfolio Governance Team (PGT),” where high-level leaders make complex decisions on the various projects together. As the high level learns to work together, that attitude cascades down and their team members will start to work together. Cisco has created a cross-functional team with representatives from marketing, software engineering, manufacturing, quality assurance, and customer service, to intensify security for router lines. The team had a three-layer structure. Project managers allowed for around 100 people to attend the meetings, but only a core group of 20 had to communicate back to their functions. Above these levels was a small governance team, made up of two vice presidents, the company’s chief development officer and the leader of the core team of 20 people. This implementation of cross-functional governance worked well for that project and several other projects and Cisco is now the number one router security vendor, with business growing at about 80% per year for 5 years.

The following are the recommended rules for the portfolio governance team.

1. Every project should have an end-to-end accountable leader:

Instead of having one leader, each functional team should have a leader. E.g. VP of engineering should be the owner for the engineering action items and Director of marketing for marketing activities.

 

2. Every project should have clearly established goals, resources, and deadlines. Before the beginning of any project, there should be an approved budget, and a charter defining priorities, desired outcomes, and timeframes. Establishing those early on is one of the key roles of the PGT.

 

3. Teams should have the project’s success as their main objective. Different members will have other priorities, but for the project to succeed the contribution should be part of the compensation and performance review for each individual.

 

4. Every project should be constantly re-evaluated. PGTs should keep a list of projects and priorities and routinely cut those that aren’t working or that don’t align with business goal

 

 

Reference: 75% of the cross-functional teams are dysfunctional by Behnam Tebrizi (HBR)

 

 

 

 

One of the things that we didn’t discuss in class is managing projects globally. Working for a multinational company as a global project manager, most of the projects that I work are global projects with very different challenges. The common challenges are navigating time zone/ holidays and dealing with cultural differences. However, as all team members are part of the same organization, familiar with the org culture and the financial goals are same and clear, it is easier to pull the project forward. But, I always wonder how difficult it would be to manage global service projects as the pressure will be high, time will be short (as it addresses immediate need) as the project is operated on donations.

I read an article about a project that was managed by the WSP (a global business providing management and consultancy service to the property, transportation and infrastructure) for the Canadian Red Cross (CRC) to re-house approximately 11,000 people who lost their homes during the 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia. The company managed the reconstruction of almost 21 villages – rebuilt around 4000 homes.

Initially, there was a conflict in the objectives between the Indonesian government and WSP. The government wanted better quality material to be used to build homes but WSP insisted that it builds communities and not just houses (Schools, churches, homes, etc.). The goals that were given to the WSP by the CIDA (Canadian international development agency) were to 1. Inform the client about the planning and construction process   (options and risks) and 2. Deliver the professional services to manage the project to complete successfully and in time.

The major challenges to the project was the immense pressure to complete the project as there were so many associations involved, the project was being funded by donations, and the urgent need to put these homeless people back in safe communities. Another major issue was to stay within budget – as this was a foreign project, the budget numbers were built based on second hand or third hand information and was not as accurate as it should have been. Also, the project was in remote areas and there were lot of unknowns and extra challenges associated such as poor availability of material, poor access because of flooding, damaged roads and bridges and communities that wouldn’t corporate because of previous bad experience. WSP also found that all the subcontractors were behind schedule and the goals were not clear for all the members.

WSP stopped all project activities for a while to analyze the situation and to come up with clear goals, action plan, action items, deliverables, timelines and owners. They communicated all of the above to all parties involved so that everyone was clear of the goals and the target dates. WSP also did research of similar areas that were affected by natural disasters and found out more about the homes and building materials used and made recommendation to builders to use a different system build approach to complete the project faster and cheaper.

The major project success came from making partnerships and alliance with the local community and using their local consulting and contracting services to complete the project. WSP did a voice of the customer approach to listen to the preference, issues and suggestions of the locals. WSP maintained this relationship for almost a year after the project was completed and made improvements based on the feedback received from the people.

Reference: https://www.apm.org.uk/sites/default/files/Reconstruction%20after%20the%20Indian%20Ocean%20Tsuna