Team structure types and tata nano as example

1. TEAM STRUCTURE

2. Types of Teams
• Comprise few members of same department
• Come together periodically to assess and solve problems with functioning in their
department
Problem Solving Teams
• In addition to discussing issues, have the power to implement them
• Highly effective when members are motivated and belong to different backgrounds
Self Managed Teams
• Members belong to different functions but similar hierarchical level
• Use expertise of different areas to achieve common goal
• Good management needed to build trust amongst members of varying backgrounds
Cross Functional Teams
• Members collaborate online, usually with very little direct face-to-face interaction
• Easy to manage, but lack of motivation and trust can occur due to lack of direct
interaction
Virtual Teams

3. Types of Teams
Cross-
Functional
Teams
Fail due to -
Unclear governance
No accountability
Unspecific goals
Lack of coordination
Portfolio
Governance
Team
End to end accountable leader
Clearly defined goals and constraints
Main objective is success of project
Constant re-evaluation
Source: https://hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional

4. Types of Teams
Self-
Managed
Team
Autonomy to implement the decisions they come to
Ownership of tasks
Sharing of technical and managerial roles
Decisions made by people who know about the job
Lack of hierarchy may lead to conflicts in decision
making
May lead to lack of creativity due to conformity
Self management adds to responsibility which may
be time consuming

5. Types of Teams
Virtual
Teams
Much more cost effective than traditional teams
Potential to hire employees better than locally available
Potential to run company 24/7
Flexible scheduling
More restricted communication
Harder to track individual effort, create culture
Conflicts and lack of trust due to no direct interaction
Collaboration is difficult as individuals work in isolation

6. Diverse points of views
contribute to broader
perspectives
Shared responsibility
improves collaboration
Streamlined decision
making process due to
reduced management levels
Potential to capitalize on
expertize of different
members
Too many viewpoints can
slow down decision
making
Can lead to problems in
coordination and control
due to decentralization
Individual appraisal and
growth difficult, may lead
to employee dissatisfaction
Can lead to conformity
and “Yes-manship”
Pros
Cons
Team-based Structure

7. CHALLENGES
• “All weather, affordable and safe means of transport”
• Training of a rural workforce
• Deconstruct and reconstruct the prototype
• Reducing cost throughout design to production
• “People’s car” vs. “World’s cheapest car”
TATA NANO

8. TEAM STRUCTURE
• Tata motors – hierarchical & vertically integrated organization.
• Tata Nano – disruptive innovation – new team structure.
•Key 5 people - different engineering disciplines – Project X3 ( April 2003)
 ADVANCED ENGINEERING GROUP
Nikhil A. Jadhav – Industrial designer
Anil Kumar – Vehicle Safety Specialist
R.G. Rajhans – Body System Engineer
 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Justyn Nokrek – Italian designer with IDEA
 ENGINE & TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
Sam Jhonny
TATA NANO

9. • In 2005 Girish Wagh joined as the Project lead.
• Eventually ERC became a 500 member team that comprised of small teams that had clear tasks.
• Each team comprised of experts, both from Tata motors and from outside.
• A core team of 5 engineers gathered every day to discuss the latest developments.
• In addition to this team, vendors and small group of mechanics were part of the development
phase.
• Teams reported to the senior management that gave their inputs and took final decisions.
TEAM STRUCTURE
TATA NANO

10. TEAM STRUCTURE
Manufacturing
planning team
included people from
different process :
Welding, paint shop
etc. Team existed
from the beginning.
Design team -
repeated design
changes. Worked in
close coordination
with the sourcing
team
Sourcing team gave
their inputs on what is
possible and what isn't
to design team.
Went shopping
worldwide for engine.
Couldn't find anything
in budget. Review
meeting held.
Ratan Tata after
discussions asked
the design team to
build the engine in
house.
Vendor management
team: Most parts
were outsourced.
Selected vendor that
could deliver

11. WHY THIS TEAM STRUCTURE?
• Tight budget constraints required iterative and modular approach.
Car’s body designed twice and engine designed thrice.
The floor and seats – designed 10 times.
• Teams based on components made prototyping and improving easier.
• Specific engineering and re-engineering requirements to bring down assembly costs
required strong cooperation among teams working on related components
• Nano was to be designed from scratch, hence a right mix of in-sourcing and outsourcing
was required.
• Team leads with strong cross-functional experience were preferred over specialists,
since they understood details better.
ALL THESE CHARATERISTICS ARE THOSE OF A TYPICAL SELF MANAGED TEAM!

12. BELBIN’S TEAM ROLE THEORY
• Different roles that people play in a team and how does that affects team
performance.
• A Team Role is defined as "a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with
others in a particular way.“
• Belbin’s theory highlights the preferred behaviours necessary for effective team
functioning.
• He has identified 9 predictable behavior patterns or “team roles.”

14. • Access to each of the 9 Belbin Team Roles – effective performance
• The role balance hypothesis - teams containing more of the roles will perform
any given task more effectively than teams containing fewer roles.
Team of Shapers
Pros Cons
High work rate Don’t like working together
Quick to explore possible avenues In-fighting
Goal oriented activities
BELBIN’S TEAM ROLE THEORY

15. BRAINSTORMING
• members are encouraged to put up their points.
• No evaluation of ideas at the initial stage and criticism avoided.
• Encourage ‘Freewheeling’ – unusual and outlandish ideas are encouraged.
• Encourage ‘Piggybacking’ – group members try to combine and improve on ideas.
PROS
• Creative ideas
• Piggybacking
• Social matching
CONS
• Collaborative fixation
• Social matching
GROUP DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES

16. NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE

17. DELPHI TECHNIQUE
•No face to face discussions.
•Identify a panel of experts.
•Independently and anonymously write solutions.
•Compiled and re-circulated for comments.
•Japanese variation : ringi – sequential editing; subtasking,
report creation, face to face discussion
PROS
•Enlists assistance of experts.
•No interpersonal problems.
•Adequate time for reflection and analysis
CONS
Time consuming

18. DEVIL’S ADVOCACY
•Eliminates groupthink.
•Planning group comes up
with alternate solutions
which are critiqued
•Can also be used in early
stages.

19. DIALECTICAL ENQUIRY

20. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Conflicts are inherent.
2 types of conflicts – A & C
•A conflict – personal disagreement
•C conflict -- ideas in conflict. Focus on issue related differences.
Promote C type conflicts
•Helps in identifying flaws .
•Allows team to contribute openly and honestly to the decision making process.
•A type conflict reduces the team effectiveness due to increasing hostility and
elimination of trust.
Managing conflict
•Disseminate full agenda clearly
•Providing the right environmment
•Keep a sense of where discussion is going
•Channel discussion from A type towards C type
•Support the team

21. Thank You