Group Presentation for MGMT-4160


Published on

This presentation was delivered as part of the final project for MGMT-4160 at Harvard Extension School.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Group Presentation for MGMT-4160

  1. 1. Eastern Cooperative Oncology GroupsRave Implementation TeamPresented by:Sam DowdEmily EnglerDeborah GroheStein Tan
  2. 2. Agenda● About ECOG● About the Team● Survey Responses● Meeting Observations● Interviews● What do you think?● Analyses● Recommendations● Conclusion
  3. 3. About ECOG● Founded in 1955● One of nine Cooperative Groups in the US● Primarily funded by the National CancerInstitute
  4. 4. GroupStatisticianGroup ChairECOG Group StructureGroup ChairsOfficeResearchOperations(at ECOG CC)StatisticalCenterDataManagementOffice(at ECOG CC)Director of Group AdministrationDirector of Clinical OperationsProtocolDevelopmentManagerDataManagementManagerTranslationalScienceManagerManager ofStudy SetupProject Leaderfor GrantsManagementInformationSystemsManager (R)InformationSystemsManager (S)Project Leaderfor InformationDesignECOG Coordinating Center
  5. 5. Team Environment● Managing the NCI mandated implementationof medidata Rave● Implementation across all CooperativeGroups○ More than 20 working groups across CooperativeGroups with NCI● Also, ECOG is currently merging with ACRIN
  6. 6. About the Team● Formed in 2011 to coordinate the Raveimplementation● Four different departmentsrepresented○ Biostatistics (Judi)○ Information Technology (Rick)○ Data Management (Kerry)○ Study Setup (Mary)● Meets weekly for two hours
  7. 7. Team Type● Problem Solving Team withTactical elements● Each person brings problems from the Raveworking groups, or problems from his/herrespective departments● Have some directives from NCI and fromECOG leadership team
  8. 8. 360 External Exam● Survey○ Very broad questions pertinent to team dynamics ingeneral○ Included cross-reference questions for checking○ Included a comment box to expound beyond scale● Observation○ Look at team dynamics (3x) and check forinconsistencies with survey○ Look at body language, physical arrangement, etc.● Interview○ Very targeted questions gathered from Survey andObservation data
  9. 9. Strengths/Weaknesses● Strengths:○ Dedication○ Differentperspectives○ They genuinely enjoyworking together○ Intelligence○ Experience○ Communication○ Effectiveness○ Humor● Weaknesses:○ Distractions○ Factors outside of theircontrol○ No agenda for meeting○ Too reliant oncomputer○ No one taking minutesand reliant on memory○ Multi-tasking and notfully focused onmeeting items
  10. 10. Synchronicity
  11. 11. Synchronicity
  12. 12. Confidence Levels
  13. 13. Honesty/Fairness
  14. 14. Team Morale
  15. 15. Out-of-Work Relationship
  16. 16. Autonomy
  17. 17. Meeting Observation● Meeting Arrangement○ 2 Tables: Host and Guests○ Open door● Equality & Respect○ Age & Sex & Personalities○ Strengths & Weaknesses● Open Communication○ Signposts & Alignment & Peer Support○ Computer vs. High Listening○ Group interests & conflicts● Tight-Knit Bond○ Warm & Funny○ Comfortable & High Trust & Proactive
  18. 18. Team Creation &Structure● Spontaneously created○ sub-group of ECOG Leadership Group● Problem-solving team● Group leader - Judi○ leadership can be flexible● No formal agenda○ evolving agenda based on issues at hand○ leadership of each meeting reflects topics discussed● Everyone satisfied with unorthodox format○ free-flow allows for group to be reactive to issuesthat arise between meetings
  19. 19. Team Self-Perceptions● Sense of camaraderie○ People genuinely like each other● Meetings seen as useful & important toECOG● "Home room" aspect● Half of the members more vocal in thismeeting than in other meetings
  20. 20. Progress on Rave &Upcoming Challenges● Differing perspectives on progress withRAVE implementation● Upcoming challenge of incorporating ACRINinto the team function
  21. 21. Your Thoughts?
  22. 22. Analysis #1:High Levels of Trust● Highly Effective, despite "bad habits"○ No agenda○ Spend a lot of time on the laptops○ Lots of distraction in the meeting
  23. 23. Analysis #2:Respectful● People are respectful of what others wouldsay and truly listen● Team members give benefit of doubt andrespect that whats being said has merits● Everyone gather together to find support formissing pieces of ones task or someoneelses● Respect towards Harmony
  24. 24. Analysis #3:Mindfulness● Everyone is mindful about team tasks anddirection● Members are mindful about their contributionand how it affects the team● Individuals are mindful about keeping teamharmony
  25. 25. Analysis #4:Lasting Team● Formed ad-hoc to manage Raveimplementation● All members say the team will continue tomeet after Rave is implemented● Filled an unknown need for problem solvingacross the four departments
  26. 26. Recommendations● ECOG and ACRIN cannot function in parallelindefinitely● Will need to integrate the teamscounterparts from ACRIN● The members should continue to meet, evenafter the end of the project● In our paper, we will further investigatewhether the team can survive adding ACRINcounterparts
  27. 27. Closing Remarks● It was a pleasure to investigate the RaveImplementation Team● It is a high functioning team● ACRIN merger will present challenges to theentire organization, but ourrecommendations will focus on the RaveImplementation Team● We foresee the team continuing to meet asnecessary, to the benefit of the organization- they are a viable entity
  28. 28. Q&A