By Elisabeth Goodman, 9th September 2017
The nature of “multi-teaming” in project management
Many of the organisations that I work with manage projects as the essence of their way of working. The complexity of this approach is compounded in two ways:
- Operating a matrix model of management – where individuals have a line manager who is not necessarily their project manager
- Assigning team members and leaders to multiple teams – so that they dip in and out of projects according to when their time and expertise is most needed.
There are tremendous benefits to this way of working – such as:
- ensuring that team members’ expertise is used to the full across the organisation
- sharing knowledge and good practices between teams
- fostering learning and development
- providing opportunities for continuous improvement
- minimising downtime and associated costs.
Risks and costs
There are also risks and costs – such as:
- increased employee stress
- reduced quality of team interactions (or group identity / cohesion)
- knock-on effects from issues in one project impacting on resource availability for others.
Facts and data
Mark Mortensen and Heidi K. Gardner. The overcommitted organization. HBR Sept-Oct 2017, pp. 58-65
Mark Mortensen and Heidi Gardner’s article “The overcommitted organization” in the September – October issue of Harvard Business Review (pages 58-65) has some facts and data about the extent of “multi-teaming” in organisations.
They have studied hundreds of teams in a range of sectors (including professional services, oil and gas, high tech, consumer goods) over a period of 15 years.
Apparently at least 81% of more than 500 managers in global companies reported “multi-teaming” as a way of life, with people involved in as many as 6 to 15 projects in a week.
My own empirical observation in working with teams in the Life Sciences, and in Library and Information Management, is that “multi-teaming” is also a way of life, although the number of projects that people are juggling is generally not quite as high!
Tips for addressing the challenges of “multi-teaming”
Mortensen and Gardner provide some very useful tips on how to address the associated challenges of “multi-tasking”, which also reinforce the points we share in RiverRhee’s training on team and project management.
Building the team
We know that the most effective teams are those that not only have a clear idea of their purpose and individual members’ roles, but have spent time developing the relationships with the team.
Our experience that the most effective way to set the team on the right path is to have a kick-off meeting or launch, and ideally face-to-face. This enables people to start to get to know each other, and from there, as emphasize Mortensen and Gardner, comes trust and accountability.
In fact, they maintain that having a team launch can improve performance by up to 30%.
An emphasis on building the team also helps people to feel that they “belong” to each team that they are working on – something that we know can be a very strong motivator for many people. For team leaders, understanding what motivates each person will help them to boost and maintain motivation.
Making the most of everyone’s skills
Mortensen and Gardner also say that it is worth doing a team launch even with team members who are already familiar with each other as every new project is likely to bring new requirements and skills into play.
They advocate mapping everyone’s skills – both technical and soft, along with wider areas of knowledge. This ensures that everyone is aware of who can bring what skills to bear, that they consult each other accordingly, and also hold each other accountable for quality.
This also builds on what we know from using personality tools such as MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and Belbin Team Roles to understand and optimise the interactions between team members.
Managing time and priorities
This is probably the most important issue for many team members and leaders. We often hear of people’s frustration as the time they thought they had for one project gets squeezed by demands from another.
In a RiverRhee newsletter on Project Management, we shared our advice for using explicit project charters for agreeing the time that each person would spend on each project. This is very much a starting point but it opens up the conversation, and many organisations then use portfolio review meetings to further address changes in priorities and requirements on people’s time.
Mortensen and Gardner have some other great suggestions:
- schedule mandatory full team meetings at key milestones – making these dates clear with other teams
- use sub-team meetings at other times to reduce the number of commitments on the rest of the team members – and supplement these with brief check-ins with other individuals
- use electronic tools to share updates on project status, and consider using short videos as alternative to long memos
- visual tools such as the video on Skype or Facetime for individual one-to-one check-ins can help to pick up body language cues for instance around stress, motivation, understanding etc.
We put a big emphasis on the importance and benefits of sharing learning and how to do it for creating excellence in project management, so it was good to see the HBR authors highlight this too.
As they say, learning is something that can suffer when people are pushed for time. It is also an important motivator for many people.
We stress the importance of scheduling a close-out meeting as part of the project plan to ensure that learnings are reflected upon and actions agreed for sharing and addressing them.
Mortensen and Gardner also suggest that team leaders:
- give and encourage feedback
- designate co-leaders for different aspects of the project to enhance the amount of contact between team members
- pair people up (perhaps with different levels of expertise) so that they can learn from each other
- pose “what if” questions and re-direct questions to team members to also foster cross-tutoring
What can be done to reduce risk and boost innovation at an organisational level
The HBR authors have some additional, perhaps less commonly identified, organisational strategies for addressing the challenges of “multi-teaming”, and so decrease risk, and increase innovation.
These strategies focus on ensuring a good understanding of and actively managing the spread of people across teams.
Many organisations use some form of FTE or resource management system to understand who is working on what project, and how much time they are devoting to each. They mainly use this for accounting purposes – for example so that costs to clients can be more accurately calculated.
Mortensen and Gardner suggest that this mapping of resources should also be used to understand and manage the associated risks and opportunities from “multi-teaming”.
Anticipating shock-waves between projects
So for instance if the overlap of members between teams is large, there is a greater risk of knock-on shocks from one project to another. With an accurate mapping of team membership, project or senior managers could anticipate these risks and develop mitigation plans.
Optimising knowledge sharing and learning
If the overlap between members of projects is small, and the organisation values knowledge sharing between projects, then the expectation (or culture) and approaches for the transfer of learnings and good practices could be made more explicit.
Enhancing team building
The authors also suggest that, if the nature of the tasks or the culture between different project teams is very different, it will be harder for members to transition from one to the other. Understanding the overall map of resources to teams would therefore alert project, line and senior managers in these situations to put a greater emphasis on the on-boarding and team building activities.
Using dedicated resources
Organisations who have designated portfolio managers, or project management offices (PMOs) could take on many of the recommendations listed above. However, many of the smaller Life Science organisations, and Library and Information Management services that we deal with do not have this luxury.
The HBR authors’ recommendations could be an alternative to these. So for example there could be:
- designated “fire-fighters” to watch-out for any of the risks identified above
- spare resources that could be moved between teams
- “protected” or designated resources whose role and time on specific teams could not be jeopardised
Individuals in HR or IT could also have designated roles to monitor the various aspects of “multi-teaming”.
About the author
Elisabeth Goodman is the Owner and Principal Consultant at RiverRhee Consulting., a consultancy that specialises in “creating exceptional managers and teams”, with a focus on the Life Sciences. (We support our clients through courses, workshops and personal one-to-one coaching.) Elisabeth founded RiverRhee Consulting in 2009, and prior to that had 25+ years’ experience in the Pharmaceutical Industry in line management and internal training and consultancy roles supporting Information Management and other business teams on a global basis.
RiverRhee is a support supplier for One Nucleus and a CPD provider for CILIP (Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals).
Elisabeth is accredited in Change Management, in Lean Sigma, in Belbin Team Roles, MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) and is an NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) Practitioner.
She is a member of CILIP and of APM (Association for Project Management) where she was a founding member of the Enabling Change SIG.