1. Measuring and Managing Team Performance:
A Balanced Approach
Researcher: Kepa Mendibil Telleria
Supervisor: Dr Jillian MacBryde
DMEM Research Presentation Day
24 January 2003
DMEM
DMEM

2. Contents Research area & background Research questions Methodology
Results & findings
Contribution of the research

3. Research area & Background
‘A team concept is central to the development of process-based management and it is one of the few means by which large business processes can be integrated ‘ (Teare et al)
Over half of the Fortune 1000 are implementing self-directed teams
Implications:
Increase empowerment
Increased accountability
Increased emphasise on measuring and managing team performance

4. Common Problem FUNCTIONS Manage processes PROCESSES Operate processes
Conflicts between departmental and
processes managers
PROBLEMS:
Business Process objectives are
not aligned with company’s strategy
Employees have a lack of the
company’s vision worsening of
employee participation
Manage processes
Support processes
PROCESSES
Operate processes
Employee performance measurement
is not aligned with process performance
and organisational objectives
Lack of understanding on how to
measure team performance

5. Why do teamwork attempts fail?
‘Traditional ways of measuring performance, determine compensation, provide training, and even organize facilities are tailored to vertical units, not processes, and to individuals, not teams’ (Hammer & Stanton, 1999)
Need to develop a better understanding on how to manage and measure team performance

6. Research questions
RQ1. How do current organisations tackle the issue of team performance?
RQ1.1. Why is TPM difficult?
RQ2. Is there a need for a tool that facilitates TPMS design?
RQ2.1. What are the requirements of a TPMS development process?
RQ2.2. Do current methods fulfil those requirements?
RQ2.3. What are the drawbacks?
RQ3. If yes, how should such a tool look like?
RQ4. How does such a tool impact on organisations?

7. Methodology: Research Phases
VALIDATING AND EVALUATING
Jan02 – Jan03
Phase
Activities
Outcomes
PRE-UNDERSTANDING
Jan00 –Sep00
THEORY
BUILDING
Aug00-Jun02
THEORY
TESTING
Jun01 – Sep02
Novelty of
research
Discussion
groups
Broad
literature review
Specific
literature review
Practical
relevance
Exploratory research
(Phase 1):
4 case studies
Industrial workshops
Seminars
Applicability of
The tool in
Different
environments
Exploratory research
(Phase 2):
6 ‘best practice’
case studies
Case studies
Expert opinion
Action
Research
Focus group
discussions
Reliability of
Research
process
Research problems
RQ1, RQ2
-Research gap
-RQ3, RQ4
-Typology for TPMS design
-Theoretical framework
-TPM workbook
-Theoretical framework and workbook verified and improved
-Findings
-Reliable answers to research questions
-Proved novelty of the research

8. Pre-understanding 4 case studies: EPSRC project collaborators
6 ‘best practice’ case studies
Litton (electronics)
NCR
Rank Xerox (Sales and Service)
Irizar (Coach manufacturer, Basque Country)
Maier (Plastic moulding, Basque Country)
ITP (aerospace, Basque Country)

9. Pre-understanding
All organisation deemed team performance measurement (TPM) as an important aspect
Organisations are measuring team performance in an ad hoc manner
Teams using performance measures systematically:
were further advanced in the team development scale
combined process measures with other variables affecting team performance (e.g. EFQM self-assessment)
had a better understanding about customer requirements
had a more systematic and transparent ways of communicating and deploying company strategy
Managers and team leaders suggested that it would be beneficial for industrial organisations to develop a practical tool to facilitate and assist in developing TPM systems
3 main areas impacting team performance
Process management
Team management
Organisational support management

10. Theory Building (TB) Development of TPM typology
Do current framework meet TPM requirements?
if yes
Re-think research questions
if no
Develop TPM framework
Construct practical tool
Apply model/tool and extract learning
Contribution to Knowledge

11. TB: Typology of TPM development process
Built upon previous typology for PMS development process (Hudson et al, 2001)
Input from a variety of research disciplines (e.g. HR, organisational psychology, operations management)
Classified into 3 areas:
Development process
Characteristics of measures
Dimensions of team performance
Criteria for team performance:
Team effectiveness: How well does the team achieve its process/task objectives?
Team efficiency: How do team processes affect the capability of team members to work together in the future?
How satisfied are the team members? (Combination of personal growth and satisfaction
Provide a balanced view of team performance – i.e. relate measures to those drivers for team performance

12. TB: Factors affecting team performance
(1) Team task/process
Interdependence
Technology
Significance
Skills variety
Autonomy
(2) Team characteristics and processes
Structure and composition: e.g. Team type, size, heterogeneity, roles, norms, goal clarity, Skills Knowledge and Attitudes, Commitment, Accountability, Autonomy
Internal processes: e.g. Communication, Coordination, Leadership, Learning, Collaboration, Monitoring, Feedback, Decision making, Conflict resolution, Innovation
External processes: e.g. Integration, Coordination, Communication, Cooperation
(3) Organisational support
Training
Rewards
Information systems
Physical environment
Strategic alignment

13. TB: PM models vs TPM typology
Most available PM frameworks/models do not analyse performance from a team perspective
Those that do, only focus on measures related to the team process/task
Current frameworks do not consider those key factors that drive team performance
There is a lack of integration between theory on team effectiveness and theory on performance measurement
There is a need for a tool to facilitate TPMS design

14. Theoretical framework
Company strategy
Customer requirements
TPMS
Deployment
path
Team Performance Measures
Acceptability of task/process output
Capability of team members to
work together in the future
Team member satisfaction
Deployment
path
Deployment
path

15. Theoretical framework
Defines a deployment path including five considerations:
Expectations (company, process and team)
Requirements (process, team, organisation)
As-is analysis (current performance vs. desired)
Improvement Action Plan
Performance Measurement

16. Theoretical framework
(1) What do we want the process to do?
(2) What does the team need to do?
-Team Competencies (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes)
-Team processes
(3) What is currently the team doing?
How does this affect process performance?
(4) Improvement Action plan
(5) Team Performance Measures
Deployment
path

17. Theory Testing Theory and workbook was tested through:
4 industrial workshops with Australian organisations (around 15 organisations)
2 further case studies: Honeywell, Polaroid
4 industrial seminars
Focus groups
Expert opinion
Action Research in Highland-Spring

18. Action Research (AR) in Water Bottling Co
Objective -
‘To enhance the cross-functional integration of the manufacturing process team through the development and implementation of a team based performance measurement system.

19. AR in Water Bottling Co. Product Manufacturing Team Engineering
Laboratory
Quality Assurance
SUPPLIER
CUSTOMER
Blowmoulding
Good Inwards
Filling &
Packaging
Warehouse
Material flow
Service flow
Look at company and departmental strategy
Define objectives and measures for the process
Align training to competency requirements
Define other organisational issues required to maximise team performance

20. AR in Water Bottling Co. RESULTS ENABLERS Team Performance Measures
OEM
Cost per case
Employee Satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Growth needs satisfaction
Organisational commitment
Skills required vs available (training matrixes)
Employee involvement
Number of implemented suggestions
Process performance
Employee satisfaction
Team competitiveness
ENABLERS
Process Measures
Downtime Analysis
Estimated vs real changeover time
First hour efficiency
Delivery reliability
Estimated vs Real manning level
Non-budgeted overtime analysis
Teaming Measures
Employee productivity
Employee surveys (interdepartmental)
Performance appraisal analysis
Communication
Boundary management
Organisational Support Measures
Planned vs delivered training
HS vs ‘best practice’ benchmark
Employee survey
% of teams/individuals with goals aligned to company strategy and process objectives

21. Results & findings General
The application of the TPM framework enables to highlight those key areas that were not previously addressed
Teams at different developmental stages require the use of different performance measures
TPM framework was applied in a wide range of industries and thus, we argue that it could be used by a diverse type of organisations
TPM framework is applicable with teams carrying out a variety of tasks and at different organisational levels
TPM as a local management tool and a bottom-up approach
The TPM framework complements other PM models used by the organisations
The generic nature of the framework does not allow to explicitly identify key factors and measures for different type of teams at different organisational levels and developmental stages

22. Results & findings Related to Action Research Related to methodology
TPM measurement as a way of increasing management involvement
TPM facilitates the growth in focus and involvement of team members
But, all the above when considering the bigger context
Related to methodology
Usefulness of combining different research strategies

23. Contribution to knowledge was made by….
Developing a better the understanding of the implications of BPR into team performance management and measurement
Better understanding the limitations of current methodologies for measuring team performance
Further developing the understanding of performance measurement in the context of teams by integrating theory of team effectiveness into research on performance measurement
to practice was made by….
Developing a practical tool (based on a theoretical framework) that facilitates organisations to assess and manage their teams

24. ?