Needs Assessment and AnalysisCollaboration Improvement Report<br />Michael Gough, Tracy Karceski, Christina Mayes, Galen S...
Introduction<br />The client requested a workplace collaboration study<br />Stakeholders wanted to improve collaboration e...
CRO Background / PEST Analysis<br />3<br />
Frame Factors<br />Project – limits placed by resources<br />Six week time-frame<br />No budget<br />Remote access to cons...
Project Methodology<br />Approach<br />3 distinct phases<br />Initial<br />Data collection and analysis<br />Final<br />Mu...
Project Methodology, continued<br />Sample<br />Identified by client<br />N= 22 (total sample)<br />N= 5 (Initial intervie...
Project Methodology, continued<br />
Data Analysis - Interviews<br />Collaborating face-to-face is preferred<br />Less opportunity for “water cooler” discussio...
Survey Data<br />Email - most effective tool for online collaboration!<br />Respondents see themselves as savvy with colla...
Data Analysis<br />10<br />
SWOT Analysis<br />internal<br />external<br />11<br />
Positive Findings<br />1. Leadership support<br />CEO level interest<br />Top-down change management effectiveness of hier...
Positive Findings, Continued<br />3. IT Infrastructure<br />Highly skilled workers to maintain or build collaborative work...
Negative Findings<br />6. Communication<br />Preference for face-to-face meetings (mentioned in 3 of 5 interviews)<br />So...
Negative Findings, Continued<br />8. No best practice for existing tools <br />Too many tools to choose from (22 different...
16<br />Migration Strategy Phase 1<br />
17<br />Migration Strategy Phase 2<br />
18<br />Migration Strategy Phase 3<br />
Recommendation 1<br />Relaunch the Collaboration Task Force to create renewed focus for improving collaboration <br />Regr...
Recommendation 2<br />Standardize workplace collaboration tools<br />Research best tool for web-conferencing<br />Identify...
Recommendation 3<br />Create an approved online collaboration guide<br />List approved tools and explain their intended us...
Recommendation 4<br />Design a workshop for communicating and managing projects at a distance<br />How to overcome the cha...
Recommendation 5<br />Implement a work-friendly social network or online community<br />Set ground rules for usage<br />En...
References<br />Brooks, K. (2010, June) CRO Industry Update. Retrieved from http://www.contractpharma.com/articles/2010/06...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Project presentation version 2.1 final

1,478 views
1,414 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,478
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
212
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Project presentation version 2.1 final

  1. 1. Needs Assessment and AnalysisCollaboration Improvement Report<br />Michael Gough, Tracy Karceski, Christina Mayes, Galen Stone, and Daria Vaughn <br />December, 2010<br />1<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />The client requested a workplace collaboration study<br />Stakeholders wanted to improve collaboration efficiency and effectiveness of teams, task forces and committees<br />Specific management concerns<br />Duplication of emails / effort<br />Document control<br />Email etiquette and professionalism<br />2<br />
  3. 3. CRO Background / PEST Analysis<br />3<br />
  4. 4. Frame Factors<br />Project – limits placed by resources<br />Six week time-frame<br />No budget<br />Remote access to consultants<br />Organization – limits placed by culture<br />Busy schedules of associates<br />Availability of billable employees<br />Privacy concerns with providing data<br />Stakeholder – limits placed by client<br />No disclosure of company-sensitive data<br />Limited sample for data collection<br />Internal consultant to serve as mediator<br />Consultant – limits placed by team<br />Busy schedules / competing priorities<br />Multiple obligations (school, work, family)<br />Internal consultant<br />4<br />
  5. 5. Project Methodology<br />Approach<br />3 distinct phases<br />Initial<br />Data collection and analysis<br />Final<br />Multiple methods<br />Quantitative and qualitative data<br />Methods selection (Werner & DeSimone, 2009)<br />Reliability<br />Consistency of results<br />Freedom from collection method bias<br />Validity<br />Devices measure what should be measured<br />Practicality<br />Appropriate resources used to gather data<br />
  6. 6. Project Methodology, continued<br />Sample<br />Identified by client<br />N= 22 (total sample)<br />N= 5 (Initial interviews)<br />N= 22 (online survey) <br />Management and non-management<br />Response rates<br />95% (online survey)<br />100% (initial interviews)<br />Possible bias<br />
  7. 7. Project Methodology, continued<br />
  8. 8. Data Analysis - Interviews<br />Collaborating face-to-face is preferred<br />Less opportunity for “water cooler” discussions with web conferencing<br />Online collaboration is better when well planned/managed<br />Email can be cumbersome<br />8<br />
  9. 9. Survey Data<br />Email - most effective tool for online collaboration!<br />Respondents see themselves as savvy with collaboration tools<br />Lots of tools listed!<br />Respondents willing to learn new tools <br />9<br />
  10. 10. Data Analysis<br />10<br />
  11. 11. SWOT Analysis<br />internal<br />external<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Positive Findings<br />1. Leadership support<br />CEO level interest<br />Top-down change management effectiveness of hierarchical corporate structure <br />Utilization of already established Collaboration Task Force<br />2. Existing tools in place<br />Virtual meeting technology creates a face-to-face meeting environment<br />Lotus Notes built-in collaboration features<br />Some existing on-line training available for certain programs/tools<br />Learning Management System (LMS)<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Positive Findings, Continued<br />3. IT Infrastructure<br />Highly skilled workers to maintain or build collaborative workspaces <br />Resources available to Monitor security risk and exposure<br />4. Available collaboration systems<br />Inexpensive collaborative tools are available on the web <br />Eliminate geographical time zone barriers<br />Shared workspaces connect collaborators and eliminate duplication <br />5. Employees have high technical skills<br />Employees have training options available for collaborative tools<br />Employees are interested in learning new tools for collaboration<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Negative Findings<br />6. Communication<br />Preference for face-to-face meetings (mentioned in 3 of 5 interviews)<br />Some lack e-mail etiquette<br />Unclear task responsibility results in duplication of efforts<br />Cultural over-reliance on e-mail (63.6% feel it is most effective tool for collaboration)  <br />7. Existing training not being used to its full potential<br />41% of respondents reported they have received no training <br />Some advocated for more targeted training<br />14<br />
  15. 15. Negative Findings, Continued<br />8. No best practice for existing tools <br />Too many tools to choose from (22 different tools listed)<br />Confusion over which tool to use<br />Lack of tool compatibility <br />Confusion over how to select tools<br />Functionality overlap (three types of web conferencing software applications)<br />9. Technological change<br />Concerns over security breaches <br />Cultural resistance (50% and 68.2% of respondents reported they have not used social networking or online discussion forums)<br />10. Costs associated with not improving collaboration efforts<br />Loss of revenue to competition with better streamlined collaboration tools and faster project turnaround<br />Increasing travel costs for face-to-face meetings<br />15<br />
  16. 16. 16<br />Migration Strategy Phase 1<br />
  17. 17. 17<br />Migration Strategy Phase 2<br />
  18. 18. 18<br />Migration Strategy Phase 3<br />
  19. 19. Recommendation 1<br />Relaunch the Collaboration Task Force to create renewed focus for improving collaboration <br />Regroup to review the results of the needs analysis<br />Encourage buy-in from all CTF members<br />Determine division of labor and next steps<br />Critical Success Factors<br />Top-down support (management driven)<br />Collaboration Task Force involvement<br />Must promote CEO level interest and encourage employee buy-in<br />19<br />
  20. 20. Recommendation 2<br />Standardize workplace collaboration tools<br />Research best tool for web-conferencing<br />Identify duplicate tools<br />Condense tools to eliminate duplication<br />Critical Success Factors<br />Top-down support (management driven)<br />Collaboration Task Force involvement<br />Must establish best practices for the organization<br />20<br />
  21. 21. Recommendation 3<br />Create an approved online collaboration guide<br />List approved tools and explain their intended use<br />Incorporate job aids for each tool but focus on best practices rather than just the basic mechanics of use<br />Continue existing technical training as appropriate<br />Critical Success Factors<br />Top-down support (management driven)<br />Collaboration Task Force involvement<br />Must be published and communicated company wide<br />21<br />
  22. 22. Recommendation 4<br />Design a workshop for communicating and managing projects at a distance<br />How to overcome the challenges of online collaboration<br />How to set communication "ground rules" upfront<br />How to make everyone feel comfortable with contributing to the conversation<br />How to choose the best tool(s) for collaborating<br />Critical Success Factors<br />Top-down support (management driven)<br />Collaboration Task Force involvement<br />Must be attended or reviewed by all employees<br />22<br />
  23. 23. Recommendation 5<br />Implement a work-friendly social network or online community<br />Set ground rules for usage<br />Encourage buy-in from employees<br />Promote the “water cooler” experience<br />Critical Success Factors<br />Top-down support (management driven)<br />Collaboration Task Force involvement<br />Must be regulated and monitored to ensure appropriateness of content<br />23<br />
  24. 24. References<br />Brooks, K. (2010, June) CRO Industry Update. Retrieved from http://www.contractpharma.com/articles/2010/06/cro-industry-update<br />Collaborative Tools Strategy Task Force Report [Final Draft]. (2008, November 21). Retrieved from University of Washington website: http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/reports/CTSTF_Report_Final_Draft.pdf<br />Folinsbee, S., Jurmo, P. (1994). Collaborative Needs Assessment: A Handbook for Workplace Development Planners.  ABC CANADA<br />Template - http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/CT010145006.aspx#pg:3|ai:TC030006145|<br />24<br />

×