course material

1. (Mt) – below mentioned questions: Q1- Identify the specific drivers of and
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences MGT325: Management of Technology
Assignment 2 Course Name: Student’s Name: Course Code: Student’s ID Number: Semester:
I CRN: Academic Year: 1440/1441 H For Instructor’s Use only Instructor’s Name: Students’
Grade: Marks Obtained/Out of Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low Instructions – PLEASE
READ THEM CAREFULLY • The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD
format only) via allocated folder. • Assignments submitted through email will not be
accepted. • Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may
be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page. •
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer. • Late submission will
NOT be accepted. • Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from
students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No
exceptions. • All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced)
font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism). •
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted. Course Learning Outcomes-
Covered Discuss the challenges of technical teamwork. (LO-9.1) Describe the characteristics
of a high-performing project team. (LO-9.2) Make recommendations on how to build a high-
performing project team (LO-9.3) Assignment Instructions: • Log in to Saudi Digital Library
(SDL) via University’s website • On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases” • From the
list find and click on EBSCO database. • In the search bar of EBSCO find the following article:
Title: “Leading Technology-Based Project Teams.” Author: Thamhain, Hans J. Document
type: Article Assignment Questions: (Marks 05) Carefully go through the Article “Leading
Technology-Based Project Teams.” and answer the below mentioned questions: Q1- Identify
the specific drivers of and barriers to effective team performance in the article and discuss
why it is important for project managers to understand them? (250-300 words) Q2-. How
can senior management help in building a high-performing project team? (250300words)
Q3-Recommend, how do you develop a well-performing project team further? (250-300
words) Leading Technology-Based Project Teams Hans J. Thamhain, Bentley College
Abstract: The results of a field study of technology-based projects identify specific barriers
and drivers to effective team performance. The article provides insight into the
organizational environment and managerial leadership conducive to high project
performance in technologyoriented team environments. The results suggest that many of
the performance criteria have their locus outside of the project organization; yet managerial
leadership, at both the project level and senior management level, has significant impact on

2. the team environment that ultimately affects team and project performance. In addition to
managing the technical aspects of the project, team leaders must pay particular attention to
the people side, managing relations across the entire work process, including support
functions, suppliers, sponsors, and partners. An engineering manager can use this article to
gain additional perspective into the processes of teamwork, and to glean ideas for
enhancing project team performance in technology-based organizations. Keywords:
Teamwork, Project Management, Leadership, Technology EMJ Focus Areas: Program &
Project Management V irtually all project managers recognize the critical importance of
team leadership to project performance; yet building and sustaining high-performing
project teams in today’s dynamic and often turbulent environment is a daunting task. Most
challenged seem to be managers in complex and technology-intensive situations, such as
information systems (IS) and information technology (IT) developments, characterized by
high speed, high change, and high uncertainty (Shim and Lee, 2001; Zhang, Keil, Rai and
Mann, 2003). These team leaders must be both technically and socially competent, an
argument supported by an increasing number of managers and researchers who point to
the human side as the most challenging part. In fact, research shows consistently that
performance problems on IS/IT projects largely involve management, behavioral, and
organizational issues rather than technical difficulties (Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Hartman
and Ashrafi, 2002; Whitten, 1995). Critical success factors (CSF) span a wide spectrum of
technological, organizational, and interpersonal issues that involve gaining and maintaining
cohesiveness, commitment, technology transfer, self-directed teams, rapidly changing
technology and requirements, resource limitations, innovation, and demands for flexibility
and speedy implementation. In these contemporary business environments, traditional
models of management and team leadership are often not effective and can even be
counter-productive. Yet for many enterprises, and tens of thousands of IS/IT project teams,
these challenges do not get in the way of success. They produce great results on time and
budget, even under extremely tight time and resource constraints. What lessons can we
learn? In spite of considerable research, conclusions emerge slowly (Nellore and
Balachandra, 2001). Many studies point, however, at two specific sets of variables: (1) team
leadership, and (2) team environment as strongly associated with project performance
(Thamhain, 2002). Yet relatively little is known about the leadership criteria conducive to
high team performance in technology-intensive project environments, an area targeted in
this field study. What We Know About Project Teams Teamwork is not a new idea. The basic
concepts of organizing and managing teams go back in history to Biblical times; however, it
was not before the beginning of the twentieth century that work teams were formally
recognized as an effective device for enhancing organizational performance. Specifically, the
discovery of important social phenomena in the classic Hawthorne studies
(Roethlingsberger and Dickerson, 1939), led About the Author Hans J. Thamhain combined
a career of RD&E and business management with university teaching and research. He is
currently a Professor of Management and Director of MOT and Project Management
Programs at Bentley College. His industrial experience includes 20 years of technology
management with GTE/Verizon, General Electric, Westinghouse and ITT. He holds PhD,
MBA, MSEE, and BSEE degrees, and has written over 70 research papers and five

3. professional reference books in project and technology management. Dr. Thamhain is the
recipient of the Distinguished Contribution Award from the Project Management Institute in
1998 and the IEEE Engineering Manager of the Year 2000 Award. He is certified as a New
Product Development Professional (NPDP) and a Project Management Professional (PMP).
Contact: Hans J. Thamhain, PMP, PhD, Bentley College, Adamian Academic Center, AAC-313,
Waltham, MA 02452-4705; phone: 781-891-2189; fax: 781-891-2896
hthamhain@bentley.edu Refereed Research Manuscript. Accepted by Timothy Kotnour.
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004 35 to new insight on group
behavior and the benefits of work group identity and cohesion to performance (Dyer,
1977). In today’s more complex multinational and technologically sophisticated
environment, the group has reemerged in importance as the project team (Fisher, 1993;
Nurick & Thamhain, 1993; Thamhain and Wilemon, 1999). Supported by modern
information and communication technologies, and consistent with the concepts of
stakeholder management (Newell and Rogers, 2002) and learning organizations (Senge and
Garstedt, 2001), the roles and boundaries of teams are expanding toward self-direction
within more open and organizationally transparent processes. Work teams play an
important role not only in traditional projects, such as new product developments, systems
design and construction, but also in implementing organizational change, transferring
technology concepts, and in running election campaigns. Whether Yahoo creates a new
search engine, Sony develops a new laptop computer, or the World Health Organization
rolls out a new information system, success depends to a large degree on effective
interactions among the team members responsible for the new development. This includes
support groups, subcontractors, vendors, partners, government agencies, customer
organizations, and other project stakeholders (Armstrong, 2000; Barkema, Baum, and
Mannix, 2002; Dillon, 2001; Gray and Larson, 2000; Karlsen and Gottschalk, 2004;
Thamhain, 2003; Zanomi and Audy, 2004). Globalization, privatization, digitization, and
rapidly changing technologies have transformed our economies into a hyper-competitive
enterprise systems where virtually every organization is under pressure to do more things
faster, better, and cheaper. Effective teamwork is seen as a key success factor in deriving
competitive advantages from these developments. At the same time, the process of team
building has become more complex and requires more sophisticated management skills as
bureaucratic hierarchies and support systems decline. All of this has strong implications for
organizational process and leadership. Not too long ago, project managers could ensure
successful integration of their projects by focusing on properly defining the work, timing
and resources, and by following established procedures for project tracking and control.
These factors are still crucial today; however, they have become threshold competencies—
critically important but unlikely to guarantee project success by themselves. Today’s
complex business world requires fast and flexible project teams that can work dynamically
and creatively toward established objectives in a changing environment (Bhatnager, 1999;
Jasswalla and Sashittal, 1999; Thamhain, 2002). This requires effective networking and
cooperation among people from different organizations, support groups, subcontractors,
vendors, government agencies, and customer communities. It also requires the ability to
deal with uncertainties and risks caused by technological, economic, political, social, and

4. regulatory factors. In addition, project leaders have to organize and manage their teams
across organizational lines. Dealing with resource sharing, multiple reporting relationships
and broadly based alliances is as common in today’s business environment as email,
flextime, and home offices. Because of these complexities and uncertainties, traditional
forms of hierarchical team structure and leadership are seldom effective and are being
replaced by self-directed, self-managed team concepts (Barner, 1997; Thamhain and
Wilemon, 1999). Often the project manager becomes a social architect who understands the
interaction of organizational and behavioral 36 variables, facilitates the work process, and
provides overall project leadership for developing multidisciplinary task groups into unified
teams, and fostering a climate conducive to involvement, commitment, and conflict
resolution. Investigating Leadership in Technology Teams The objective of this article is to
explore the principle factors that influence technology-based team performance, with focus
on information systems environments. Because of the complexities, and the absence of
specific theories or constructs, an exploratory field research format has been chosen for the
investigation. The principle method of information gathering is action research, including
participant observation and in-depth retrospective interviewing. The purpose of this
combined data collection method was to cast the broadest possible informationgathering
net to examine the processes involved in effective project team leadership in technology-
based enterprises. This combined method is particularly useful for new and exploratory
investigations such as the study reported here, which is considerably outside the
framework of established theories and constructs (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Eisenhardt,
1989). The format and process of the specific questionnaires and in-depth semi-structured
interviews used in this study were developed and tested in previous field studies of R&D
management, similar in context to the current investigation (Kruglianskas and Thamhain,
2000; Thamhain, 1996, 2001, 2002, 2003; Thamhain and Wilemon, 1996, 1999). A basic
model for probing the relationship between work environment and team performance is
shown in Exhibit 1. It graphically summarizes several classes of variables that were
consistently found in previous studies as influences on project team performance
(Bhatnager, 1999; Fisher, 1993; Nellore and Balachandra, 2001; Thamhain, 1996, 2001,
2002, 2003; Thamhain and Wilemon, 1999). They are broken down into four sets of
variables of the enterprise environment: (1) physical, (2) psychological, (3) value, and (4)
leadership. Although additional sets of variables have been identified by other researchers
(Belassi, 1996; Karlsen and Gottschalk, 2004), the variable sets shown seem to represent a
baseline of influences on project team performance and a good starting point for the
research design of this investigation. Specifically, data were captured between Exhibit 1.
Model Showing Classes of Work Environmental Influences on Team Performance 7ORK
%NVIRONMENT s 0HYSICAL %NVIRONMENT s &ACILITIES s 7ORK 3ETTING 0ROCESS s
)NFRASTRUCTURE 4OOLS s !MBIANCE s 0SYCHOLOGICAL %NVIRONMENT s -ANAGEMENT
3UPPORT s 4EAM 3UPPORT s 4RUST 2ESPECT 0RIDE s 2ISK 3HARING s #ONFLICT
!NXIETY s -ORAL 4EAM 3PIRIT s *OB 3ECURITY s 6ALUES s !CCOMPLISHMENT
2ECOGNITION s *OB 3KILLS%XPERTISE#REDIBILITY s #OOPERATION s !UTONOMY
&REEDOM s ,EADERSHIP Engineering Management Journal 4EAM 0ERFORMANCE T
/VERALL 4EAM 0ERFORMANCE (ANDLING 2ISKS %FFORT #OMMITMENT 4OWARD

5. 2ESULTS 2ESOURCE %FFECTIVE 3CHEDULE &OCUSED (IGH 2ESPONSE 2ATE
)NNOVATIVE 3OLUTIONS %FFECTIVE #OMMUNICATIONS 1UALITY /RIENTED
#OOPERATIVE W -GMT #LIENTS #HANGE /RIENTED &LEXIBLE Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004
2000 and 2003, from 27 R&D organizations, most of them part of large corporations of the
Fortune-500 category. For each of the 27 organizations, the research was conducted in
three stages. In the first stage, interviews with project leaders and project team personnel,
together with hands-on participant observations, helped to understand (1) the specific
nature and challenges of the R&D process within the company under investigation, (2) to
prepare for the proper introduction of the questionnaire, and (3) to design the follow-up
interviews. During the second stage, data were collected as part of a management
consulting or training assignment by questionnaire, observation, and expert panel. The
third stage relied mostly on in-depth retrospective interviewing, providing perspective and
additional information for clarifying and leveraging the data captured in stages one and
two. As part of the action research, the data collection included other relevant source
material such as project progress reports, company reports, design review memos,
committee action reports, financial statements, and information from the public media.
These sources were especially helpful in designing questionnaires, interviews and
validating observations. Data. The unit of analysis used in this study is the project. The field
study, conducted between 2000 and 2003, yielded data from 76 project teams with a total
sample population of 895 professionals such as engineers, scientists, and technicians, plus
their managers, including 16 supervisors, 76 project team leaders, 18 product managers, 8
directors of R&D, 7 directors of marketing, and 11 general management executives at the
vice presidential level. Together, the data covered over 180 projects in 27 companies. The
projects mostly involved information system developments, Exhibit 2. Strongest Drivers
Toward Project Team Performance (Kendall’s Tau Rank-Order Correlation) Variables Team
Environment and Performance Mean Sigma 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project
Team Environment* 1 Interesting, stimulating work 3.9 .7 1.0 2 Accomplishment and
recognition 3.4 .9 .38 1.0 3 Conflict and problem resolution 2.8 1.1 .27 .43 1.0 4 Clear
organizational objectives 3.1 1.3 .17 .32 3.8 1.0 5 Job skills and expertise 3.6 1.3 .09 .39 .33
.32 1.0 6 Direction and leadership 3.3 1.1 .29 .37 .27 .40 .17 1.0 7 Trust, respect, credibility
4.1 1.1 .29 .39 .43 .19 .09 .16 1.0 8 Cross-functional cooperation and support 3.5 1.3 .20 .31
.38 .02 0 .22 .37 1.0 9 Effective communications 4.2 .9 .34 .23 .36 .22 .11 .13 .38 .47 1.0 10
Clear project plan and support 3.1 1.7 .38 .25 .36 .19 .08 .15 .17 .37 .29 1.0 11 Autonomy and
freedom 3.1 .8 .43 .18 .15 .12 .22 .20 .33 .11 .23 .05 1.0 12 Career development/
advancement 3.3 1.2 .10 .19 .09 0 .38 .20 .16 .03 0 .09 .22 1.0 13 Job security 2.2 1.1 .16 .16
.26 .10 -.1 0 .27 .15 .12 0 .15 .30 1.0 14 Ability of dealing with risk 2.7 1.6 .39 .27 .33 .21 .32
.27 .08 .37 .34 .36 .34 .10 .30 1.0 15 Effort + commitment to results 3.6 1.0 .43 .35 .30 .28 .15
.22 .40 .28 .27 .36 .36 .07 .12 .27 1.0 16 Overall team performance 4.0 .7 .45 .38 .37 .36 .36
.35 .30 .27 .27 .25 .23 .12 .12 .43 .47 Project Team Performance # 1.0 All variables were
measured with descriptive statements on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2)
disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree. Statistical Significance: p=.10 (τ≥.20),
p=.05 (τ≥.31), p=.01 (τ≥.36); correlation of p=.01 or stronger are marked in bold italics. *, #
Symbols: Statements to measure variables were judged by team members [*] and senior

6. management [#], as indicated. Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004 37
performance. Although the importance of these variables was yet to be validated, it offered
a starting point for the next level of this investigation. For determining the actual
importance of these variables as a basis for performance correlation while minimizing
potential biases from the use of social science jargons, specific statements were developed
to describe each of the 22 variables of the work environment. Team members were asked to
think about their work environment and indicate their agreement with a series of
statements on a fivepoint Likert-type scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral,
(4) agree, (5) strongly agree. For example, to measure the perception of interesting,
stimulating work, team members were asked to indicate their agreement with the
statements such as, “my job is interesting and professionally stimulating” and “I always
enjoy my work.” The perception of recognition and accomplishment was measured with
statements such as, “My work leads to significant accomplishments” and “My efforts are
being appreciated and properly recognized by the organization.” Hence, an independent set
of scores was obtained on each of the environmental and performance variables. This
method allowed the researcher to rank teams by (a) the characteristics of their work
environments in each of the 22 variables, and (b) each of the three performance measures,
which then became the input for the rank-order correlation summarized in Exhibits
rollouts, or installations and other RD&E in the areas of IT/ high-technology
product/service development. Project budgets averaged $1,200,00. All project teams saw
themselves working in a high-technology environment. The 27 host companies are large
technology-based, multinational companies, mostly of the “FORTUNE-500” category1. The
data were obtained from three sources: questionnaires, participant observation, and in-
depth retrospective interviewing, as discussed in the previous section. A questionnaire was
developed to measure (1) team performance and (2) the characteristics of the work
environment. Both sets together contained 25 variables, as shown in Exhibits 2 and 3.
Specifically, the three performance measures/variables included (1) the ability to deal with
risk, (2) team effort and commitment toward agreed-on objectives (i.e., schedule, budget,
quality, cooperation, and innovative solutions), and (3) overall team performance. Team
performance was measured on a fivepoint scale: (1) poor, (2) marginal, (3) good, (4) very
good, and (5) excellent, obtained as judgment from senior management responsible for
projects and their business results. For characterizing the project environment, 22
measures/ variables were selected from the initial stage-one investigation. All 22 variables,
shown in Exhibit 2 (variables #1–13) and Exhibit 3 (variables #1–9), were identified by
management (in stage one) as important drivers toward project team Exhibit 3. Weakest
Drivers Toward Project Team Performance (Kendall’s Tau Rank-Order Correlation)
Variables Team Environment and Performance Mean Sigma 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Project Team Environment* 1 Salary and bonuses 2.6 .7 1.0 2 Compensatory time-off 3.0 .9
.25 1.0 3 Project visibility and popularity 3.2 1.1 .14 -.14 1.0 4 Team maturity and tenure 3.1
1.1 .38 .11 22 1.0 5 Project duration 3.2 1.7 .12 .07 .33 .30 1.0 6 Stable project requirements
2.3 1.7 .17 .15 .11 -.14 -.11 1.0 7 Stable organizational process 2.4 1.7 .18 .18 .20 .09 .02 -.04
1.0 8 Technological complexity 2.9 1.3 -.11 .08 -.03 .21 -.12 -.12 .09 1.0 9 Project size and
complexity 3.3 1.8 .12 .16 .08 .25 .39 -.12 .10 .31 1.0 10 Ability of dealing with risk 2.7 1.6 -

7. .09 .04 .17 .11 -.16 .20 .14 -.13 .07 1.0 11 Effort + commitment to results 3.6 1.0 .12 .09 .22
.11 .06 .05 -.09 -.12 -.10 .27 1.0 12 Overall team performance 4.0 .7 .15 .15 .12 .10 -.08 -.10 -
.12 -.15 -.18 .43 .47 Project Team Performance # 1.0 All variables were measured with
descriptive statements on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3)
neutral, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree. Statistical Significance: p=.10 (τ≥.20), p=.05 (τ≥.31),
p=.01 (τ≥.36); correlation of p=.01 or stronger are marked in bold italics. *, # Symbols:
Statements to measure variables were judged by team members [*] and senior management
[#], as indicated. 38 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004 2 and 3.
Further, data were captured during 138 interviews with the team leaders and line
managers. The interviews with product managers, marketing directors, and general
management executives were especially desired to gain insight into the issues and
challenges of cross-functional integration necessary for successful technology transfer. The
findings have been integrated into the Implications and Discussion section of this article for
additional perspective. Data Analysis. Standard statistical methods were used to summarize
the survey data such as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. The agreement among the various
populations was tested using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks. Further, the
association among the various sets of variables was measured using Kendall’s Tau rank-
order correlation. Because the organizational and behavioral variables investigated do not
necessarily follow normal distribution, non-parametric statistical methods are deemed
more robust and appropriate2. In addition to the statistical methods for testing agreements
among populations and for determining correlations, content analysis has been used for
evaluating the qualitative part of the interviews, questionnaires, observations and action
research. Results The findings of this field study are organized into two sections. First, the
characteristics of a high-performance team environment are analyzed and discussed.
Second, the managerial implications are discussed together with specific recommendations
for effective team leadership in technology-based project environments. High-Performance
Team Environments. One of the consistent and most striking findings from the field study is
the need for increasing involvement of all project stakeholders throughout the organization
and its external partners. Managers point out that for today’s technology-based
undertakings, project success is no longer the result of a few expert contributors and skilled
project leaders. Rather, project success depends on effective multidisciplinary efforts
involving teams of people and support organizations interacting in a highly complex,
intricate, and sometimes even chaotic way. The process requires experiential learning, trial
and error, risk taking, as well as the crossfunctional coordination and integration of
technical knowledge, information, and components. Most managers see technologyintensive
project work as a fuzzy process that cannot always be described objectively or planned
perfectly, and its results cannot be predicted with certainty. Furthermore, project
performance itself is difficult to define and measure as discussed in the appendix of this
article. In spite of all these challenges, however, many project teams work highly effectively,
producing great results within agreed-on budget and schedule constraints. This suggests
that technology-based projects can be managed, given the right team environment. This
proposition is further explored and supported with this field study. Using Kendall’s Tau
rank-order correlation, Exhibits 2 and 3 summarize the association among factors of the

8. organizational environment and project team performance, listed in order of importance to
overall team performance. The presence and strength of these organizational variables was
measured on a five-point scale as a perception of project team members, while project
performance was measured as a perception of Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No.
2 senior management, as discussed in the method section of this article. As indicated by the
two strongest correlations, factors that fulfill professional esteem needs seem to have a
particularly favorable influence on project team performance. The five most significant
associations are: (1) professionally stimulating and challenging work environments [τ =.45],
(2) opportunity for accomplishments and recognition [τ =.38], (3) the ability to resolve
conflict and problems [τ =.37], (4) clearly defined organizational objectives relevant to the
project [τ =.36], and (5) job skills and expertise of the team members appropriate for the
project work [τ =.36]. These influences appear to deal effectively with the integration of
goals and needs between the team member and the organization. In this context, the more
subtle factors seem to become catalysts for cross-functional communication, information
sharing, and ultimate integration of the project team with focus on desired results. The
other favorable factors in Exhibit 2 relate to overall directions and team leadership [τ =.35],
trust, respect and credibility among team members and their leaders [τ =.30], and business
process, as reflected by cross-functional cooperation and support [τ =.27], communications
[τ =.27], clear project plans [τ =.25], clearly defined authority relations, and sufficient
autonomy and freedom of actions in line with the managerial expectations and
accountabilities [τ =.23]. To a lesser degree, opportunities for career development and
advancement [τ =.12], as well as job security [τ =.12], seem to have a positive influence. All
associations are significant at p =.1 or better, with the most significant correlations of p =
.01 or stronger shown in bold italics. It is interesting to note that the same conditions that
are conducive to overall team performance also lead to (1) a higher ability to deal with risks
and uncertainties and (2) a stronger personal effort and commitment to established
objectives and their team members as shown in the correlation table. The field data
analysis, moreover, supports the expectation that project teams that are perceived as
effective by their management are also seen as (3) creative problem solvers who can (4)
effectively utilize time and resources. In fact, a high degree of crosscorrelation exists among
the set of four of variables, as measured via Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by rank.3
The test shows that managers agree on the ranking of team performance factors in Exhibit 2
at a confidence level of 98%. That is, managers who rate the team performance high in one
category are also likely to give high ratings to the other three categories. Barriers to High
Team Performance. In addition to the 13 most significant factors reported in Exhibit 2, it is
interesting to note that many other characteristics of the work environment that were
perceived by managers as important to effective team performance did not correlate
significantly as measured by a p-level threshold of .10. As summarized in Exhibit 3, among
the factors of lesser influence to project team performance are: (1) salary, (2) time-off, (3)
project visibility and popularity, (4) maturity of the project team, measured in terms of time
worked together as a team, (5) project duration, (6) stable project requirements with
minimum changes, (7) stable organizational structures and business processes which result
in minimal organizational changes, such as caused by mergers, acquisitions and

9. reorganization, (8) minimum technological interdependencies, such as caused by the
dependency on multiple technologies, technological disciplines and processes, (9) project
June 2004 39 size and project complexity, arguing that project scope, size, and
implementation challenges by themselves do not necessarily translate into lower team or
project performance. It is further interesting to see that several of the weaker influences
shown in Exhibit 2 actually seem to have opposite effects to those popularly held by
managers. For example, it appears that, the more stable the project requirements, the less
overall team performance is to be expected. While these correlations are clearly non-
significant from a statistical point of view, they shed some additional light on the subtle and
intricate nature of project team performance in technology-intensive environments. From a
different perspective, it is interesting to observe that influences that support intrinsic
professional needs show a strong favorable performance correlation, while the findings give
only weak support to the benefit of “extrinsic influences/motivators,” such as salary
increases, bonuses and time-off, and metrics-related factors, such as team tenure, project
duration and changes, as well as complexity and technology factors (cf. Exhibit 3). This is in
spite of the fact that all influences in Exhibits 2 and 3 were perceived by most managers as
critically important to team performance4. This finding suggests that managers are more
accurate in their perception of team members’ intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, needs. It also
seems to be more difficult to assess the impact of project parameters, such as size, duration
or complexity, than the impact of human needs on project work performance. Implications
and Recommendations The empirical results presented in this article show that specific
conditions in the team environment appear most favorable to project teamwork. These
conditions serve as bridging mechanisms, helpful in enhancing project performance in
technology-based organizations. Considering the exploratory nature of this study, an
attempt is being made to go beyond the obvious results of the statistical data and to
integrate some of the lessons learned from the broader context of the field research. The
interviews and observations conducted for proper formulation, introduction and follow-up
of the questionnaires were especially useful in gaining additional perspective and insight
into the processes and challenges of teamwork; they also helped in gleaning lessons for
effective technical project management. Leadership—The Art of Creating a Supportive
Work Environment. An important lesson follows from the analysis of these field
observations. Managers must foster a work environment supportive to their team members.
As shown by the statistical correlation, factors that satisfy personal and professional needs
seem to have the strongest effect on the project team performance. The most significant
drivers are derived from the work itself, including personal interest, pride and satisfaction
with the work, professional work challenge, accomplishments, and recognition. Other
important influences include effective communication among team members and support
units across organizational lines, good team spirit, mutual trust and respect, low
interpersonal conflict, plus opportunities for career development and advancement and, to
some degree, job security. All of these factors help in building a unified project team that
can leverage the organizational strengths and competencies effectively, and produce
integrated results that support the organization’s mission objective. Creating such a climate
and culture conducive to quality teamwork involves multifaceted management challenges

10. which 40 increase with the complexities of the project and its organizational environment.
No longer will technical expertise or good leadership alone be sufficient, but excellence
across a broad range of skills and sophisticated organizational support is required to
manage project teams effectively. Hence, it is critically important for project leaders to
understand, identify, and minimize the potential barriers to team development. Leading
such self-directed teams can rarely be done “top-down,” but requires a great deal of
interactive team management skills and senior management support. Tools such as the
Project Maturity Model and the Six Sigma Project Management Process can serve as
frameworks for analyzing and fine-tuning the team development and management process.
Managing Team Formation and Development. No work group comes fully integrated and
unified in their values and skill sets, but needs to be carefully nurtured and developed.
Managers must realize the organizational dynamics involved during the various phases of
the team development process. They must understand the professional interests, anxieties,
communication needs, and challenges of their team members and anticipate them as the
team goes through the various stages of its development. Many of the problems that occur
during the formation of the new project team or during its life cycle are normal and often
predictable; however, they present barriers to effective team performance. The problems
must be quickly identified and dealt with. That is, team leaders must recognize what works
best at each stage and what is most conducive to the team development process. Tools such
as focus groups, interface charts and the Four-Stage Model of Team Development (originally
developed by Hersey and Blanchard), can help in identifying the leadership style and
organizational support needed in facilitating effective and expedient team developments.
Conclusion Succeeding in today’s ultra-competitive world of business is not an easy feat. No
single set of broad guidelines exists that guarantees success; however, project success is not
random! A better understanding of the criteria and organizational dynamics that drive
project team performance can assist managers in developing a better, more meaningful
insight into the organizational process and critical success factors that drive project team
performance. One of the most striking findings is that many of the factors that drive project
team performance are derived from the human side. Organizational components that satisfy
personal and professional needs seem to have the strongest effect on commitment, the
ability to deal with risk and contingencies, and overall team performance. Most significant
are those influences derived from the work itself. People who find their assignments
professionally challenging, leading to accomplishments, recognition, and professional
growth also seem to function more effectively in a technology-intensive team environment.
Such a professionally stimulating atmosphere also lowers communication barriers,
increases the tolerance for conflict and risk taking, and enhances the desire to succeed.
Other influences to project team performance are derived from the organizational process,
which have their locus outside the project organization, and are controlled by senior
management. Organizational stability, availability of resources, management involvement
and support, personal rewards, stability of organizational goals, objectives and priorities,
are Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004 all derived from
organizational systems that are controlled by general management. Project team leaders
must work with senior management to ensure an organizational ambience conducive to

11. effective team work. Leaders of successful project teams create a sense of community across
the whole enterprise. That is, they understand the factors that drive team performance and
create a work environment conducive to such a behavior. Effective project leaders can
inspire their people, make everyone feel proud to be part of the project organization and its
mission. Both clarity of purpose and alignment of personal and organizational goals are
necessary for a unified team culture to emerge. Encouragement, personal recognition, and
visibility of the contributions to customer and company values help to refuel and sustain
commitment and unite the team behind its mission. Taken together, the effective team
leader is a social architect who understands the interaction of organizational and behavioral
variables and can foster a climate of active participation and minimal dysfunctional conflict.
This requires carefully developed skills in leadership, administration, organization, and
technical expertise. It further requires the ability to involve top management, to ensure
organizational visibility, resource availability, and overall support for the project
throughout its life cycle. References Armstrong, David, “Building Teams Across Borders,”
Executive Excellence, 17:3 (Mar, 2000), p. 10. Barkema, H., J. Baum, and E. Mannix,
“Management Challenges in a New Time,” Academy of Management Journal, 45:5 (2002), pp.
916–930. Barner, R., “The New Millennium Workplace,” Engineering Management Review
(IEEE), 25:3 (Fall 1997), pp. 114–119. Belassi, W., and O. Tukel, “A New Framework for
Determining Critical Success/Failure Factors in Projects,” International Journal of Project
Management, 14:3 (1996), pp. 141–151. Bhatnager, Anil, “Great Teams,” The Academy of
Management Executive, 13:3 (August, 1999), pp. 50–63. Dillon, Patrick, “A Global
Challenge,” Forbes Magazine, Vol. 168 (Sep. 10, 2001), pp. 73+. Dyer, W.G., Team Building:
Issues and Alternatives, AddisonWesley (1997). Eisenhardt, K.M., “Building Theories from
Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, 14:4 (1989), pp. 532–550. Fisher,
Kimball, Leading Self-Directed Work Teams. New York: McGraw-Hill (1993). Glaser, B.G.,
and A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,
Aldine (1967). Gray, Clifford, and Erik Larson, Project Management, Irwin McGraw-Hill
(2000). Hartman, F., and R. Ashrafi, “Project Management in the Information Systems and
Technologies Industries,” Project Management Journal, 33:3 (2002), pp. 5–15. Jassawalla,
Avan R., and Hemant C. Sashittal, “Building Collaborate Cross-Functional New Product
Teams,” The Academy of Management Executive, 13:3 (August, 1999), pp. 50–63. Karlsen, J.,
and P. Gottschalk, “Factors Affecting Knowledge Transfer in IT Projects,” Engineering
Management Journal, 16:1 (2004). Kruglianskas, Isak, and Hans Thamhain,“Managing
TechnologyEngineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 Based Projects in Multinational
Environments,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47:1 (February, 2000), pp
55–64. Nellore, R., and R. Balachandra, “Factors Influencing Success In Integrated Product
Development (IPD) Projects,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48:2 (2001),
pp. 164-173 Newell, F., and M. Rogers, loyalty.com: Relationship Management in the Era of
Internet Marketing, McGraw-Hill (2002). Nurick, A.J., and H.J. Thamhain, “Project Team
Development in Multinational Environments,” Chapter 38 in Global Project Management
Handbook (D. Cleland, ed.), McGrawHill (1993). Roethlingsberger F., and W. Dickerson,
Management and the Worker, Harvard University Press (1939). Senge, P., and G. Carstedt,
“Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution,” Sloan Management Review, 42:2

12. (2001), pp.24–38. Shim, D., and M. Lee, “ Upward Influence Styles of R&D Project Leaders,”
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48:4 (2001), pp. 394–413. Thamhain, H.,
“Managing Innovative R&D Teams,” R&D Management, 33:3 (June 2003), pp. 297–312.
Thamhain, H.J., “Criteria for Effective Leadership in Technology-Oriented Project Teams,”
Chapter 16 in The Frontiers of Project Management Research (Slevin, Cleland and Pinto,
eds.), Project Management Institute (2002), pp. 259–270. Thamhain, H., “Team
Management,” Chapter 19 in Project Management Handbook, (J. Knutson, ed.), John Wiley &
Sons (2001). Thamhain, H.J., and D.L. Wilemon, “Building Effective Teams in Complex
Project Environments,” Technology Management, 5:2 (May 1999). Thamhain, H.J., and D.L.
Wilemon, “Building High Performing Engineering Project Teams,” in The Human Side of
Managing Technological Innovation, R. Katz, ed.), Oxford University Press (1996).
Thamhain, H.J., “Managing Self-directed Teams Toward Innovative Results,” Engineering
Management Journal, 8:3 (1996), pp. 31–39. Whitten, N., Managing Software Development
Projects (2nd Edition), John Wiley & Sons (1995). Zanoni, R., and J. Audy, “Project
Management Model for Physically Distributed Software Development Environment,”
Engineering Management Journal, 16:1 (2004). Zhang P, M. Keil, A. Rai, and J. Mann,
“Predicting Information Technology Project Escalation,” Journal of Operations Research,
146:1 (2003), pp. 115–129. Endnotes 1 Of the companies in the sample, 65% fall into the
Fortune500 classification, 23% are Fortune-1000 companies, while the remainder are
smaller firms. None of the companies in the sample can be classified as “small or medium
size.” 2 Many of the variables investigated as part of this study contain ordinal
measurements, such as “strong agreement, agreement, disagreement, etc.” Although these
measures can June 2004 41 be rank-ordered, they do not necessarily follow a normal
distribution. Therefore, parametric statistical methods are not seen as appropriate. Instead,
distribution-free, non-parametric methods have been chosen. The limitations of non-
parametric methods, regarding their ability to extract less information in exchange for more
flexibility, is being recognized. The issues of methodological choice have been discussed
extensively by N.H. Anderson in his frequently quoted article, “Scales and statistics:
parametric and non-parametric,” Psychological Bulletin, 58 (1961), pp. 305–316. 3 The
Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance by Rank is a test for deciding whether k
independent samples are from different populations. In this field study, the test verified that
managers perceive in essence the same parameters in judging high team performance. 4
The influence factors shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 were Appendix: Measuring Project
Performance Measuring team performance is complex and challenging. Its metrics is
difficult to define. Yet team performance influences many organizational decisions from
resource allocations and training programs to compensation and promotion. Project
managers struggle with relevant measures of team performance, especially for technology-
intensive undertakings. The intricate mix of timelines, resource allocation, multidisciplinary
contributions, value perception and success criteria, makes it often difficult to establish
meaningful measures of project performance. Even more difficult is the application of such
metrics, ensuring consistency and fairness across the organization, with implications to
managerial control, and making performance-based awards fair and equitably. These
challenges exist especially in flatter, hierarchically less structured organizations, where the

13. entire workforce is engaged in a project execution. It is also a challenge in organizations
where the project team contributes only a portion to the overall success or failure, such as
for long-term product developments. Yet, in spite of its intricate nature and the fluctuation
of specific performance measures with the cultural and philosophical differences among
managers, departments and companies, some framework for measuring project
performance can be established. Most managers use performance measures that can be
grouped into three sets: Schedulebased measures, budget/resource-based measures, and
stakeholder satisfaction-based measures. Stakeholder satisfaction contains the broadest set
of metrics, with many of the measures outside the direct control of the project team. Yet,
project performance, and its ultimate success or failure will be decided eventually, and a
mutually agreed-on set of performance measures will not only help in defining the
responsibilities and criteria for rewards and recognition, but also establish guidelines for
controlling the project toward its ultimate success. Tools such as the Project Score Card and
Stakeholder Matrix can provide useful support in establishing meaningful and agreed-on
performance measures early in the project lifecycle. The following measures are most
frequently cited by managers as indicators of project performance: 42 determined during
the exploratory phase of this field study, during interviews and discussions with over 100
managers, asking them “what factors and conditions are seen to be important to high team
performance and ultimately high project performance.” These discussions resulted in over
500 factors, variables and conditions seen as “very important” to high team performance.
Using content analysis of the 500 factor statements, 22 categorical factors were developed.
In addition to the correlation analysis (shown in Exhibits 2 and 3), the 22 factors were
“tested” with 75 managers and project leaders. Each person was asked to rank the criticality
of each of the 22 factors to project team performance. The chosen Likert-type scale was: (1)
highly important, (2) important, (3) somewhat important, (4) little important and (5) not
important. Averaged over all factors and all judges, 87% of the factors in Exhibit 2, and 69%
of Exhibit 3, were rated as “important” or higher (managerial perception). ScheduleBased
Measures • On-time delivery of partial results or end items • Time-to-market • Ability to
accelerate schedule over similar projects • Dealing with risks and uncertainties Cost/
ResourceBased Measures • • • • • • Stakeholder Satisfaction Measures • Overall quality and
performance of project deliverables • Flexibility toward requirements’ changes • Overall
benefits of project implementation • Handling of problems, contingencies and conflicts •
Minimum organizational disruptions • Innovative project implementation • Dealing with
risks and uncertainties • Satisfaction measured by survey or other feedback • Repeat
business • Referrals • Critics’ report • Press, media coverage • Professionalism Risk and
Contingency Measures • Anticipating and identifying contingencies • Preparation for
dealing with risks and uncertainties • Handling of risks and contingencies • Networking
with other risk stakeholders Preparing for Future Projects • • • • Performing within agreed-
on budget Credibility and aggressiveness of cost estimate Cost reduction over
previous/similar project Dealing with risks and uncertainties Achieving a unit production
cost target Achieving an ROI target Learning from past project experiences Developing self-
directed teams Establishing continuous improvement process Benchmarking of others …
best-in-class analysis • Establishing project management norms, standards and reliable

14. performance measures Engineering Management Journal Vol. 16 No. 2 June 2004 Copyright
of Engineering Management Journal is the property of American Society for Engineering
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.