Assignment Submission

Details

Category: Level 3, Project Management

Published: Thursday, 06 September 2018 08:53

Hits: 4078

GROUP ORGANISATION FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT

Introduction

The aims of our project are to gain academic knowledge about project management and to acquire the right use of management techniques and tools during different project types. This knowledge was obtained during group work, and applying knowledge of group organisation and management was also important.
In this chapter, theories will be discussed about the aforementioned themes from the point of view of the group.

Group Organisation

Group organisation is a method used regularly in our everyday day life. It can be traced back to early years but its continous development is shown by SAGE, a world leader company which bimonthly update their international publication since 1976. (SAGE 2015) According to the publication, people can be members of several different groups at any stage of their life, such as during their studies or work.
The most common group links:

• Leadership
• Teamwork & Group Processes
• Multi-level Theory
• Organizational Communication
• Strategic Management
• Etc.

Members of groups, set for common goals, are usually selected by their knowledge and skills. Selection is an important process which influences the succeess of project, too. (Hsu, Weng, Cui & Rand 2016).
While we were forming a group, different problems occured. Firstly, members were not willing to cooperate. Secondly, joining could not been realised because of communication problems. Finally, individuals who did not join, formed another group but some important group forming stages were not applied so effectiveness were not been guaranteed either. (Meeussen, Devalux & Phalet 2014).

Motivation

Our group was formed on friendship basis by the individuals who had been missed out in the first round. Therefore, motivation needs to be discussed based on these aspects. Career interest is the most common motivation among personal motivations in groups formed during similiar academic education. It is usually more intense in case of men or mixed male-female groups. (Robnett & Leaper 2013).

Individuals’ cultural and intellectual features can also be classified into factors affecting motivation. Basic elements of self-determination theory, used for examining motivational factors, are self-sufficiency, freedom of choice and personal management. Group motivation can be influenced by manipulating rules of the group or choices. (Hagger, Rentzelas & Chatzisarantis 2014).

Masland & Lease (2013) discussed academic conformity from another aspect. According to their report, higher motivation can be identified among students who are theoretical and performance orientated. These features positively affect the forming of equal groups. On the contrary, students with less positive academic oriantation do not feel as much conformity within the groups.

Communication

Communication is vital during a group work. During the process of project management, involvement of all members of the group is essential in the communication loop for flexible changes.

Communication channels provide the flow of information and integration of individuals into the group and help coordination during the use of Team-based Problem Solving (TBPS) techniques. (Meredith and Mantel, 2012 p. 95; Hung, 2013)

Dow and Taylor (2008) published a 800-page book, titled ‘Project Management Communications Bible’ which typifies the complexity of communication. The book already emhasises the importance of Project Communication Plan in its introduction. It also mentions the lack of Project Communication Plan as the biggest mistake that group members can make.
Communication is divided into three main points:
 

• Communicating informations periodically
• Generating an appropriate level of information to clients
• Distributing and storing project information

Our group agreed to create a group on a social media platform (Facebook) as our communication channel. It provided a channel available to anybody to communicate and get access to previous messages whenever.

Management/Leadership

Group work has been an important part of higher education for a long time. Students mentioned time management, developing and organisational skills, gaining experience and working together as the benefits of group work. Non-cooperative members negatively affect the efficiency of the group. According to a research, majority of students think that group work provide useful learning experience but nearly one fifth of the students believe that deeper knowledge can be acquired by other kind of learning methods. A large majority of respondants state that the knowledge obtained on this way can be utilised in real life later and more practice like this is needed in education. (Easter & Evans 2014).

Similar to Project Management Communication, compexity of group leadership is shown by recently published Project Manegement Leadership by Burke and Barron (2014). As stated in the introduction, ’project management and project leadership are two sides of the same coin’. According to the authors, the balance between project leadership and management depends on experience. ’Sense-making’ and ’sense-giving’ are important from managers which means that managers need to be aware of the situation and organisational resources and main goals to be able to inform group members about them.

Assessment of individuals could have negative effects during the evaluation of group work because it decreases cooperation and reduces individual’s interest. (Hayek, Toma, Oberlé & Butera 2015)

Conclusion

Reviewing the aformentioned aspects in terms of our group, the following conclusion can be drawn: Forming the group was not done as it is usual in real life so it was not able to show its every feature. With regard to communication, although communication channels had been set up, in practice, our work was limited to breakes between lectures and practical seminars. Group evaluation should be mentioned, too, when we were presenting our periodic work to other groups and evaluating their performances. Our group work was not real in terms of management and leadership aspects either because we had choosen a person for group leader who had undertook it, and his knowledge and competeces had not been considered. He leaded the group until the end of the project but in overall, he did the majority of the work, too, because members’ willingness was low to take part. Concerning management side, after the initial group evaluation, the group gradually became aware of expectations and we accomplished them at the end. Positive outcome of the project is group problem-solving because we mainly solved problems together by sharing our knowledge.

References

1. Burke, R. & Barron, S. (2014). Project Management Leadership. Wiley. Available from: MyiLibrary. [21 December 2015].

2. Dow, W. and Taylor, B. (2008), Project management communications Bible. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

3. Easter, B. & Evans, B. (2014), 'Student Views of Class Projects as Learning Experiences', Schole: A Journal Of Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 29, 2, pp. 25-42, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

4. Hagger, M. S., Rentzelas, P. & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014), 'Effects of individualist and collectivist group norms and choice on intrinsic motivation', Motivation & Emotion, 38, 2, pp. 215-223, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

5. Hayek, A., Toma, C., Oberlé, D. & Butera, F. (2015), 'Grading Hampers Cooperative Information Sharing in Group Problem Solving', Social Psychology (18649335), 46, 3, pp. 121-131, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

6. Hsu, S., Weng, K., Cui, Q. & Rand, W. (2016), 'Understanding the complexity of project team member selection through agent-based modeling', International Journal Of Project Management, 34, pp. 82-93, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

7. Hung, W. (2013), 'Team-based complex problem solving: a collective cognition perspective', Educational Technology Research & Development, 61, 3, pp. 365-384, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

8. Masland, L. & Lease, A. (2013), 'Effects of achievement motivation, social identity, and peer group norms on academic conformity', Social Psychology Of Education, 16, 4, pp. 661-681, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

9. Meeussen, L., Devalux, E. & Phalet, K. (2014), 'Becoming a group: Value convergence and emergent work group identities', British Journal Of Social Psychology, 53, 2, pp. 235-248, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

10. Meredith, J. and Mantel, S. (2012). Project management. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. p. 95

11. Robnett, R.D. & Leaper, C. (2013), 'Friendship Groups, Personal Motivation, and Gender in Relation to High School Students' STEM Career Interest', Journal Of Research On Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 23, 4, pp. 652-664, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 December 2015.

12. SAGE (2015), Group & Organization Management, Available from: < https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/group-organization-management/journal200823#description >. [21 December 2015].

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE OPERATION OF THE WHOLE PROJECT

Introduction

During this project, the start of a project of a virtual, new warehouse had to be managed in a self-organised small group (4-6 people) for a company dealing with online trading. Planning, buying and installation were part of the development process. The latter one consisted of telecommunications system, lighting and computer network with client and server systems. Information and expectations of the project changed from part to part, thus it simulated real life and encouraged the group to solve problems.

Session 1

Tasks of the first phase are as follows:

• Organising a group for the whole project
• Setting up rules of meetings and group leader
• Monitoring and controll

· Creating a MS Project 2010 project file based on information given

• Cost model
• Preparing for the presentation at the end of the phase

Our group consisted only of four members at this stage of the project so we shared the aforementioned task among four of us. My task was to make the Cost Model and organise and archive the documents finished. Effective work could only be started in the last class because of difficulties we had during organising our group. Effective work could only be started in the last class because of difficulties we had during organising our group. Thus, we arrived late in the class for presentation, and we could not fully fulfil all of the tasks.

We chose someone for group leader who had been willing to undertake this role.

We scheduled 2 face to face meetings per week:
 

• Tuesday, between 9am-1pm.
• Wednesday, between 11am-1pm.

I created a group on a social media website (Facebook) for the group to be able to communicate with each other, and I added all members to this group. I also created a folder on Google Drive for storing and managing documents, and I added group members to this folder, too. I made the first Cost Model based on data provided (see Appendix)

We were not aware of requirements at the end of this phase so we did not make printed version of our documents, and we only scored 21 points of 40 becuse of other deficiencies.

Session 2

We started to finish the incompleted tasks in the second phase, and two new members joined the group. Basic information of the project was amended for this phase and we got the list of possible vendors, suppliers, their quotations and appraisal. Amount of tasks was also changed, and landscaping and construction of a new building were added. Duration of the project was extended to 30 weeks and cost was amended to £400.000. We needed to find a method to specify the criterions of selection of suppliers. Changes needed to be added to the previous MS Project 2010 file, and Cost Model needed to be upgraded.

The following criterions were specified to choose among vendors:

Primarily, the appraisal of vendors was taken into account and we chose among ones rated moderately (2 or 3). Reason of the choice was our purpose to reduce delivery time as well as duration of the project. Second point was the level of costs, and we choose among ones in 2nd and 3rd place to not exceed significantly the budget of £400.000 stated, and we avoided vendors rated lower to reduce risk.

Based on the prices of vendors selected, the total cost was £405.600 which just slightly exceeded the limit targeted.

Applying over time was also part of our project at challenging tasks to be able to keep the time schedule. Unfortunately, we could not take this opportunity because it was not clear to the group how we could use it regarding lump sum payments. During the tutorial before the project, we only used this case in terms of hourly fee determined. I asked the module leader a question but I only got a general answer about percentage rate of over time on weekdays and weekends what we could not really use. Because of the aforementioned reasons, we could not manage the opportunities given by the over time.

My was not with me at the group presentation because I had been inattentive and my phone had run out of battery. Thus, I was not able to take a picture of the appraisal sheet but another member of my group did so. However, that picture was not shared with other members of the group. Therefore, in the absence of this sheet, we do not know what is correct and missing and what result we have achieved.

 

Session 3

In the third phase, we got less tasks comparing to previous ones. A new column was inserted into the previous table which listed Mobilisations. Furthermore, some minor amandements were needed in our MS Project file.

Problems were already identified at this stage of the project as it was experienced in case of every group work before. Although, at the begining, it seemed that similar problems would probably not occur but nobody came to meetings arranged. In addition, none of the group members replied to my reminders and requests sent before meetings. They left every task for the last class before the appraisal. Therefore, there was not enough time to complete the tasks when they were complicated. I told the group this problem but they were not willing to change this attitude.
My task was to upgrade the Cost Model ocasionally. As we got a small number of tasks at this stage of the project, I had time to manage my task in the last minutes.
 

We received a better score (18/25) for the presentation but the absence of ability of applying over time greatly worsened our score.

Session 4

We were in the 15th week of the project at the fourth phase of the project, and we only needed to make changes on periods remained. Suppliers could no longer be changed. According to simulation, suppliers of materials caused delays but delivery times could be modified by paying bonus. Those builders who had already started their work, were in late but they could be motivated by a certain amount of bonus.

The groups morale towards work has not changed and everything was left for the last hours to be done. When the MS Project was updated, the people on it got stuck, because they have entered negative values, therefore the task order has shifted and the addition of premiums was done by entering new data with the intention to change it. With my help, we found a solution, however an hour was not enough to fix all the problems. My task would have been to update the Cost Model, but due to tasks being left for the last minute, I was not able to complete this job.

During the review we have completed every task in the project except for the CostModel, but the reviewer tought that the other parts were too simple, so we lost points there too. Our score was 21/30.

Session 5

This project made for the final session was considered completed. Our tasks involved the delivery drivers planned delivery time to be shown in a table that adjusts in real-time. Also we had to prepare documents showing any extra expenditures for certain drivers. Furthermore the creation of a CostModel and to compare it to the starting plans.

Due to the simplicity of the task about an hour was enough for completion. The final expenditure was £426,307, while the starting value was £473800 (see Appendix)

The plentyful time for the completion of the task was also shown in our score, as the group reached maximum points (35/35)

Conclusion

Looking through the whole project we can learn and conclude the following. Compared to the last academic year’s bad teamwork and this year’s, the team activity has still been really poor within the group, but each week, due to the weekly rating, some teamwork was noticable even if for only a couple of hours each week.

For the duration of the project we did not have a single organised meeting. The communication system that was set up, nobody used. A question I have asked regarding the project on the 10th of November have not answered to end of December.

The documents created by the group were not uploaded onto Google Drive, see missing group evaluation. Also the updated MS Project files were not uploaded or if they have been uploaded, the outdated information was uploaded, which has not matched the printed out version for the evaluation. Therefore most of the data is not available to be used by the group. As I have managed the archiving of the printed documents, I am at an advantage compared to the others, but due to the missing and incorrect files I cannot find everything either. Some documents that were essential for the portfolio were not prepared either by the group, for example the precedence chard or the on-arrow diagram, these had to be produced individually.

For the previous university groupwork I have recieved the least amount of point for my self assesment, because I have wrote down the truth and the evaluators did not like it. In my opinion from the primary direction they gave, the project had to looked at critically. I hope that the following negative evaluation will not be evaluated the same way as previously.

From a previous module I have experienced similar problems, and the module leaders have suggested that in this case, I should write about what should have been done differently. I think this applies to this module too, so I will do just that.

For a more effective results, for teamwork, it would be remmoended to put the groups together based on their skills, altough this in the teaching environment is not always possible. The group leaders should have monitored the groups capability to do the task, by changing the group leader periodically, altough not everyone would have this opportunity, but more people could have gained experience from it. The tasks should have been split inbetween the group members, or they could have been done when the group is together, when there is enough time to carry out the project and not in the last minute. The task description was not always clear for the group, for example the order of importance could only be found out in a group rating advice booklet, because of this we could not use this while the project was being carried out. For example putting the expenditures first, instead of the time. The first two week advice provided for overtime settlement did not match the actual requirements for the task and non of our questions were answered by the module leader. This problem could have been solved on our own accord, but it would have required more effort and time from the group.

In conclusion it is fair to say that even with all the negativity, we have still obtained new knowledge about the management of a project and it’s difficulties. My hopes are that I will be able to use this more effectively in a real life situation.

APPENDIX

Precedence Chart (first set of information

On-arrow Diagram (based on the precedence chart above)

Baseline Gantt Chart

Click the picture to download the full size image!

Closeout Gantt Chart

Click the picture to download the full size image!

Supplier/Contractor selection criteria

When deciding what vendors we were using as a group to help us complete the project we decided that we would choose the vendors that had the middle rating (2 or 3). We decided to choose the vendors with the middle ratings because we thought that the majority of them were the most cost efficient to our business and completed the tasks within a relevant timescale.

We also chose the 2^nd and 3^rd rated vendors on price as well as we had to ensure that they were cost efficient to our project, as we knew we had a strict budget that we had to stick to, to ensure we did not receive any penalties for taking the project into overtime.

From selecting our vendors using this process we have came in just over budget at £405,600 and this is only £5600 over the total allowance of £400,000, however as of yet we have not assigned any overtime in our project and this would help bring that total down.

Final Financial Statement