The client: A large ERP implementation team engaged in the implementation of a full suite of applications for a large, multinational software company.  The implementation team had nine separate “work streams” or sub-project teams (order to cash, procure to pay, reporting and analytics, etc..) with approximately 10 business process owners and technical consultants per team.

The situation: Based upon numerous status reports, the Engagement Manager was noticing that there were many inconsistencies between the teams.  Some teams were bogged down in meetings, others were working steadily; some teams appeared to be highly motivated, other teams lack direction, etc.

The engagement manager wanted to know what teams were strong in what areas, and what could be done to improve consistency within teams and across teams.  Because the implementation was on-going and due dates were fast approaching, an assessment and intervention needed to be done in record time.

The real challenge: It was not so much that some teams were stronger than others, but different performance elements within each team varied considerably, affecting overall team progress.

The intervention: The first step was to quicly design and administer a “quick pulse” survey assessment which measured specific actions  (such as “My project manager has clearly defined my role and responsibility”) rather than broad, ambiguous concepts (i.e. “there is strong leadership within my team.”). 

The results: Virtually all project team managers were strong in some areas, but had developmental needs in others.  For instance, one manager was good at communicating the importance of the project, but was weak when it came to soliciting ideas from team members.  This allowed us to do targeting coaching for each individual project manager based on their specific needs, rather than the more traditional, time consuming method of putting everyone in a generic workshop.  This process was repeated ten weeks later and virtually all managers gravitated towards peak performance metrics, and there was increased  consistency between teams.  And because this project was conducted by an unbiased, outside resource not responsible for formal performance review or involved with corporate politics, managers were unthreatened and very receptive to honest, candid feedback and development opportunities.