This article argues that project networks can outperform traditional project teams in organizations when confronted with complex projects that are non-routine and require sophisticated knowledge. Authors Cummings and Pletcher illustrate this argument by making A-B comparisons between project teams and project networks tasked with finding solutions to the same problems. Findings show that by tapping the personal networks of project team members to create project networks, the team can receive valuable information and feedback from noncore contributors; that the number of noncore contributors is a significant predictor of team success, and; that managers should explicitly encourage the formation of project networks.
This article intrigued me to consider the team dynamics of my department. In course design, a knowledge intensive field, our teams consist of a subject matter expert, a learning designer and an instructional technologist. From quarter to quarter, our project teams and timelines are very stable, and the outcomes would present to outsiders as more or less the same. For the most part the scope and control of projects is within the sphere of influence of our core teams, but sometimes the knowledge to create higher value outcomes does reside outside the team. The university has the resources and provides flexibility for team members to reach outside the core for resources and expertise without resistance. Where I know my department could improve the structure of our project teams would be to set up teams with broader networks and access to skill sets and knowledge. The reason for this being that as I mentioned our work is generally stable, and the outcomes relatively normalized. But our management are continuously calling for growth and innovation. This simply will not take shape if we continue with our scale and efficiency model of team selection.
LO2: Demonstrate the ability to assess complex organizational environments and achieve communication goals
LO3: Address complex challenges by collaboratively leading teams across disciplines, distances and sectors.
Comments