Student projects as dispersed projects

1. Student projects as dispersed projects Bob Hughes Faculty of management and information sciences University of Brighton

2. Some over-arching issues • Emphasis on theory or practice? • Taught versus learnt material • Groupwork in HE versus ‘industrial’ teamwork • Transferable/common skills versus modularity

3. Groupwork as a ‘good thing’ • BCS requirement for accredited courses • Employers say they ‘value’ groupwork - ‘team players’ are desirable employees • BUT • is academic groupwork the same as typical industrial teamwork • compensatory/disjunctive versus conjunctive tasks?

4. Current project management teaching at Brighton • Level 1 - group project: database application • Level 2 • mandatory ‘conduct of IT projects’: practical emphasis • integrative group project • Level 3 optional ‘project management’ • theory/issues emphasis

5. Level 2 ‘conduct of IT projectsassessment • Ethical analysis 10% • Group project • plan 10% • products 10% • control documentation 5% • individual log 10% • individual report 15% • Unseen exam 40%

6. Group project principles • Plans have to be handed in before execution - some immediate feedback can be given in tutorial • one ‘day’ of effort per team member for execution • plan is executed - activity is ‘real’ • individual reflective reports

7. Frequent defects • distinguishing planning and doing • plans do not take account of other activities that students have to undertake • team members get ‘lost’ - parasitism • products not clearly defined - especially quality criteria • schedule drift • inconsistencies in the final product

8. De facto dispersed projects? • student presence on campus is reduced by: • part-timers • part-time work • mature students - family commitments • commuting • lack of appropriate facilities e.g. computer access, meeting rooms etc.

9. Dispersed projects: convergence of HE and industrial experience • large number of case studies on dispersed/ ‘virtual’ projects • groupware/CSCW research • OB literature on group working

10. Some good sources: • D.Sole and A.Edmundson ‘Bridging knowledge gaps:learning in geographically dispersed cross-functional development teams’ www.people.hbs.edu/dsole/knowledgeGaps.pdf • J.Weiss and H.Thamhain ‘Strategies for effectively managing geographically dispersed projects’www.iamot.org/paper/103c.pdf • E.Rocco ‘Cooperative efforts in electronic contexts: the relevance of prior face-to-face interactions’hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/ais.ac.96/papers/rocco.htm

11. barriers to successful dispersed projects - based on W&T • poor protocols/procedures • role conflicts and power struggles • lack of trust caused by members ‘shirking’ responsibility • inappropriate use of communication channels • lack of face to face meetings

12. more barriers • perceived and actual information hoarding • lack of support from organizations • problems with technology infrastructure • underestimating time demands of collaborative tasks

13. Freedom-constraint cycles freedom orientation renewal trust-building same time same place same time same place implementation goal clarification different times same time commitment constraint based on Johansen et al Leading business teams Addison-Wesley 1991

14. some practical suggestions • use some tutorials for ‘team-building’ group work • encourage initial face-to-face meetings: schedule rooms • use product flow diagrams • method design • change-over points • quality checks

15. more suggestions • ‘contracts’ - commitments by participants • get students to draw up ‘communication plans’ • meetings • procedures, decision recording, follow-up • roles • librarian, coordinator, meeting chair, scribe etc.

16. Final suggestion • individual reports can offer interesting insights into how groups actually operate • can be used as a valuable research tool