How to get our project teams to perform similarly?

Dear Kiron
Interesting questions.
Thank you for making them.

Let's go to the example of formula 1:
1950 - Changing Tires and Fueling - 67seconds
2013 - Changing Tires and Fueling (with greater safety and comfort for a team and better results for the driver and vehicle) - 1.92 seconds

Analyzing the history of humanity we can group it into 5 great ages:
- Hunter / Collector
- Agricultural
- Industrial
- Information / Knowledge Worker

Farmer's yield 50 times higher than the best collector hunter

Industrial Age Productivity Is 50 Times Higher Than Family Farming

What is the challenge in the age of the knowledge worker?

I am convinced it will be 50 or more times higher than the industrial age worker

We agree with: "We need to provide teams with flexibility to discover their way of working within enterprise guidelines"

How to get teams to perform at a high level?

In most cases, I would not want a team to operate like a F1 team or commando team although we can study what they do that makes them so good at their jobs. They involve extreme levels of risk, extreme cost, and low levels of resource utilization. People normally can’t do those jobs very long due to the stresses involved and the consequences of when things go wrong.

Both types of teams work in an extremely dangerous environments where vulnerable people are working very close to high levels of hazardous energy, in an extremely high stress environment where very bad accidents happen very quickly. It is extremely expensive as all the equipment involved is very much purpose built, and a lot of intense training is required to perform their tasks precisely and reflexively. They say that the training ammunition budget for SEAL Team 6 is larger than for the whole US Marine Corps, and F1 teams arrive at the tracks with small cities packed into large trucks.

When those teams executes their tasks, each person has a very specific job that they have drilled for to reach perfection. They may have to improvise when things go wrong, but that is where the danger increases exponentially. With the massive costs and complexities involved, those teams are also used for very specific purposes. You could be Left Rear Tire Man #1 or Guy Who Busts the Door Down and that is your whole job for a mission. That's like having a specialist on the project team for a year, that only performs their job for a week.

I would use endurance auto racing teams or more general purpose military squads as a better example. They still do a lot of training for their roles, but there is more cross-training and versatility. They also are not constantly on the razors edge of disaster which means fewer risks become issues and the longevity of teams is much better. As we say in endurance racing: “To finish first, first you must finish.” so risk management involves a lot more mitigation and avoidance rather than primarily acceptance and "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". We still plan and practice fairly intensely and endure a lot of stress during critical times, but our primary concern is that everyone goes home safely at the end of the day. That's a much more sustainable project team model if your people aren't expendable.

Luis, good point. It takes time for a team to learn how to trust each other and work together well. One of the drawbacks of the strategy of forming a team for a project then disbanding it once the project is complete is that you lose the benefits to be derived from a gelled team.

Worse yet, you motivate people to not invest time in building relationships with their co-workers. This reduces the overall effectiveness of the team. Yesterday at PMO Symposium I was in a discussion with a few PMO leaders and we were discussing various issues they are facing back at work. A couple of people talked about how their organizations treated contractor PMs very differently than their full time employees (FTEs). They made it pretty clear that the contractors weren't being included in strategy discussions, the sharings of learnings within the PMO, and other important things. I was shocked that they weren't treating the contractors as full team members.

I had a chance of managing a large Energy and Utilities service provider based out of London (FTSE 25 company) over a 10-year duration. I had a team of around 40+ consultants with disparate knowledge levels and backgrounds as part of my team. As a manager, I had a 10-year vision based on the organisation's business and IT strategies that they have embarked upon. The team was reactive and just executing the orders given by Client Managers, to begin with. It took some time for me to realise that the team was not motivated enough to do proactive work as they had uncertainties about the length of contracts and also personal/professional aspirations. Then I started rolling out the five initiatives gradually year-on-year to streamline and address their issues. It helped to result in the following benefits (Tangible and quantified):
(1). We have expanded our services into the strategic areas of business and future growth.
(2). Incentive schemes motivated employees to perform "beyond the call of duty" and participation in idea generation to proposal submission to clients.
(3). Long term contracts were awarded by customer with logical grouping of services (from 3 months extension to 3 yeard contracts)
(4). We have grown our team size from 40 to 300 over 10 yeard duration.
(5). We have won several individual and team awards/rewards from Clients as well as internal management.
(6). Our account was awarded best UK account and referenceable account by corporate in 2008(after 10 years of starting the exercise).

Good thoughts in this discussion.
Some perspectives:

I was thinking about tribal leadership (Logan) with its 5 levels of performance. In the highest level, the tribe/team does not worry about themselves but about the task/project at hand. And if the task is done, they might fall back. So team performance is depending on the situation in time. Sport teams are preparing for a specific event (e.g. Olympics), and they will not be performing before or after that.

Another example for performing teams are firefighters. They are trained and prepared for many situations, but when the fire comes, they have to be adaptive to the situation. Certainly includes both command and control as well as self-organizing (so are these mutually exclusive?). There are 1.3 million firefighters in Germany, 95% of which are volunteers (60% or 800k in US). They normally do a great job, because they share a meaningful purpose.

Think one of the most important responsibilities of a project manager is to build and maintain the team. It starts with understanding which capabilities you need (both technical and behavioral), select the suitable people, convey a purpose/vision and develop trust (which is sometimes called team building). And this is done during the project, as you will have attrition and changing needs. In some projects I spent 20% on these activities.

Dear Keith
Thank you for participating in this reflection and for your analysis.

Let's consider the case of the teams of formula 1.

We agree that work is dangerous and team members are under great pressure.

Let's look at the operations they perform.

Are they repetitive?
Could the most dangerous operations be performed by robots?
Or all the processes?

If we did that (robot replacement teams) we would be in a digital transformation project

Of course, the business case is missing

It is best to conduct a daily standup or huddle and to ensure you have a scrum of scrum and make sure necessary and sufficient training is provided for all team members to ensure they are at the same level. Also conduct periodic performance reviews to ensure they are on track and committed to achieve the common goal.

Luis, good point. It takes time for a team to learn how to trust each other and work together well. One of the drawbacks of the strategy of forming a team for a project then disbanding it once the project is complete is that you lose the benefits to be derived from a gelled team.

Worse yet, you motivate people to not invest time in building relationships with their co-workers. This reduces the overall effectiveness of the team. Yesterday at PMO Symposium I was in a discussion with a few PMO leaders and we were discussing various issues they are facing back at work. A couple of people talked about how their organizations treated contractor PMs very differently than their full time employees (FTEs). They made it pretty clear that the contractors weren't being included in strategy discussions, the sharings of learnings within the PMO, and other important things. I was shocked that they weren't treating the contractors as full team members.