W2_Samuel KALU_Prioritising My Christmas Expenses
In this festive season, I am faced with a difficult challenge. There are so many obligations staring me in the face; all needing my attention. But, as it stands, all these obligations are supposed to be met with just one source of income - my salary.
The situations I am faced with include:
1. My folks are expecting me to come down and spend the holiday with them in the village, and I can’t do that without draining my wallet (I’d have to settle lots of accumulated bills).
2. Taking my family for a weekend at the Obudu Cattle Ranch Resort.
3. Buying of gifts for the family, friends, neighbours and other loved ones
4. Payment of school fees for my dependants early next month
It is my desire to take care of all these issues, but it is not possible for them to be carried out simultaneously because the resources at my disposal are very limited. I am therefore left with no other option than to prioritise them. So, I set out to do just that.
There are many methods of prioritising projects, examples of which are:
• The Priority Environmental Projects for Access (PEPA) identified a set of 35 criteria that are necessary for the prioritisation of projects. These 35 criteria are grouped under 7 headings, namely: Accession, Environmental, Financial, Economic, Technical, Social / Political and Commercial / Institutional.
• Feinstein and Chapel provided a methodology that is based on four factors, i.e., the value of the project, the time period over which the project will provide value, the total net benefit provided by the project within budget and deferred costs resulting from the execution of the project.
• Karl Weigers developed a simple project prioritisation spreadsheet which is based on a set of project drivers, that is, questions whose answers provide a basis for prioritising the project.
An assessment was made of the various issues competing for my attention, based on Karl Weigers’ model as follows (see Table below for results):
1. I put down a set of questions (drivers) that were relevant to the four issues / projects confronting me
2. The questions were weighted depending on how critical I thought they were
3. The answers to the questions were graded to reflect their relevance to the projects. (Grading was from 1 to 5, representing the degree of value that the answer provides, with a score of 5 giving the most of the quantity being evaluated).
4. The project’s scores were summed and ranked. The highest scoring project was given top priority, with the others following in descending order of their scores.
Weight
(%) SCORE
Driver Project A Project B Project C Project D
Is there any opportunity for generating revenue? 25 4 2 2 1
How will the project be appreciated by the target individuals? 15 2 5 4 4
What is the strategic value added to my life? 20 2 4 3 5
For how long will the project provide value? 20 2 3 3 4
Will this project help strengthen bonds in my family? 10 2 4 3 1
How much risk is associated with the venture? 5 5 2 1 1
How will this project's execution affect execution of the others? 5 2 5 4 3
Totals 100 265 340 285 295
Rank 4th 1st 3rd 2nd
Note: Total Score = [Weight (%)]a * [Score]a + [Weight (%)]b * [Score]b +…+ [Weight (%)]n * [Score]n
n = number of drivers
From the result of the prioritisation analysis in the table above, I concluded that if I were to carry out the above four projects, they should be done in this order (starting from the highest to the lowest priority): spend a weekend with my family at the Obudu Cattle Ranch Resort (Project B); pay my dependants’ school fees early next month (Project D); buy gifts for the family, friends, neighbours, etc., (Project C) and spend the holiday with my folks in the village (Project A).
References:
1. Priority Environmental Projects for Access (PEPA), An Introduction to Project Prioritisation and Techniques (PEPA23).
2. Feinstein, C. and Chapel, S., Fundamental Principles of Project Prioritisation, VMN Group LLC and S. Chapel Associates, 2004
3. Karl Weigers , Project Prioritisation Spreadsheet, www.processimpact.com, June 2, 2000
December 26, 2010
December 20, 2010
W1_Abiola Ojo_Tuckman's Team Assessment Survey
Opportunity Statement
Evaluating the stage of the teamwork model is essential for understanding team members attitude and behaviours; required leadership style; identifying gaps; and moving the team to the desired teamwork model.
Alternative Models
Several models exist for evaluating the operating stage of a team. These includes:
1) Tuckman forming storming norming performing model
2) Hersey & Blanchard's situational leadership model
3) Tannenbaum & Schmidt Continuum
Selected Model
For the purpose of this study, the Tuckman forming storming norming performing model will be used because it has received numerous global recognition.
Tuckman discovered that teams normally go through five stages of growth: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and finally Adjourning. Tuckman's model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached.
Discussion of Results
Based on Tuckman forming storming norming performing model survey score of 32 for forming and 30 for storming, it can be seen that the team is transitioning from the forming stage to the storming stage. This can be substantiated by some of the team attitudes as follows:
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the team is transitioning from the forming stage to the storming stage. For this transition stage, the leadership style should also be transiting from directing to coaching style based on Tuckman model. Leader Coaches style is similar to situational leadership "selling mode" in the Hersey & Blanchard's situational leadership model.
References
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/teamsuv.html
http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
Evaluating the stage of the teamwork model is essential for understanding team members attitude and behaviours; required leadership style; identifying gaps; and moving the team to the desired teamwork model.
Alternative Models
Several models exist for evaluating the operating stage of a team. These includes:
1) Tuckman forming storming norming performing model
2) Hersey & Blanchard's situational leadership model
3) Tannenbaum & Schmidt Continuum
Selected Model
For the purpose of this study, the Tuckman forming storming norming performing model will be used because it has received numerous global recognition.
Tuckman discovered that teams normally go through five stages of growth: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and finally Adjourning. Tuckman's model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, the leader changes leadership style. Beginning with a directing style, moving through coaching, then participating, finishing delegating and almost detached.
Discussion of Results
Based on Tuckman forming storming norming performing model survey score of 32 for forming and 30 for storming, it can be seen that the team is transitioning from the forming stage to the storming stage. This can be substantiated by some of the team attitudes as follows:
- difficulty in identifying some of the relevant problems as there is so much going on that members get distracted.
- members seem to have their own ideas as to how the process should look and personal agendas are rampant.
- members are beginning to realise that the tasks at hand are different and more difficult than they previously imagined
- team members are just begining to understand each other.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the team is transitioning from the forming stage to the storming stage. For this transition stage, the leadership style should also be transiting from directing to coaching style based on Tuckman model. Leader Coaches style is similar to situational leadership "selling mode" in the Hersey & Blanchard's situational leadership model.
References
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/teamsuv.html
http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm
December 18, 2010
WK1_Joshua Abiye_AACE
Having spent the last couple of years on project sites around the country trying to control cost on projects as a cost engineer, it has never been so clear what the key performance indicators are for one to rely on in tracking cost of projects and managing projects due to the mathematical manipulations one encounters as a contractor.
Nevertheless, this training has availed me the opportunity of knowing best practical project management tools which can be deployed in our country if well applied.
The Earned Value Management tool is one tool I just learnt of and is a must use by all contractors and clients alike, its workings are simple, simply put one only earns what he has worked for. The milestones payment systems is easily manipulated by mathematically manipulating S-curves to achieve payments on certain milestones even if it has not been achieved but with the EVM system, works that are completed are only what is paid for. It makes contractors to be responsible in ensuring what is to be done is actually done and on time which enhances payment.
This will in turn be a check on cost overrun of projects and good project delivery as per cost.
Nevertheless, this training has availed me the opportunity of knowing best practical project management tools which can be deployed in our country if well applied.
The Earned Value Management tool is one tool I just learnt of and is a must use by all contractors and clients alike, its workings are simple, simply put one only earns what he has worked for. The milestones payment systems is easily manipulated by mathematically manipulating S-curves to achieve payments on certain milestones even if it has not been achieved but with the EVM system, works that are completed are only what is paid for. It makes contractors to be responsible in ensuring what is to be done is actually done and on time which enhances payment.
This will in turn be a check on cost overrun of projects and good project delivery as per cost.
December 16, 2010
W1_Samuel KALU_NigeriaAACE Team Assessment
W1_SAMUEL KALU_NigeriaAACE Tuckman Team Assessment
There are stages in the life of every group of people that have come together for a particular purpose, including project management teams. Five major stages in the life of a team have been identified to be: the Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning stages.
There are stages in the life of every group of people that have come together for a particular purpose, including project management teams. Five major stages in the life of a team have been identified to be: the Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning stages.
Several models have been developed to aid in assessing the progress of teams through these stages (starting from the Forming to the Adjourning stage), one of such being the Tuckman Team Assessment Model, established by Dr Bruce Tuckman during the mid-sixties to the seventies.
I had earlier done a Team Assessment of Nigeria AACE using Tuckman’s model, and had the following scores: Forming = 28; Storming = 29; Norming = 23 and Performing = 24 (The Test was limited to the first four stages. See Attachment below for details).
The above scores show that in my opinion, NigeriaAACE Team is in the Storming stage (highest score of 29).
Some observable behaviours and/or actions that formed the basis for my scores are as follows:
1. The Team members are very forthcoming in bringing up ideas on how to make their work easier, but we end up either not using such ideas or there are many of them conflicting with one another, hence the decision-making process becomes more tasking.
2. Occasionally, we have realised that the tasks at hand have not always been what we thought they will be, even though we are all eager to get them accomplished.
3. Despite all the stress involved, our PgMs & PMs still assume their leadership roles in getting team members to do their work, and actually make personal contributions to work progress.
4. Sometimes we set goals that may not be achievable, bearing in mind our tight schedules (might be because we want to make up for lost time).
5. In our haste to catch up with time, we often forget to go back and check the provisions of our documents like the Team Governance Agreement, Project Plan, etc.
6. So far, we have put in a lot of time, money and energy (even our families are feeling the heat!), but there doesn’t seem to be any appreciable/commensurate output, in terms of deliverables.
7. Though there is a great clarity of purpose in the team (each member understands what is required of him), there are still lots of uncertainties
In this Storming stage of team development where NigeriaAACE currently sits, the recommended leadership style is: coaching (or instructing). In addition, in order to accelerate Team progress:
· Every team member should consider himself a leader by all respects, and act as such within their own spheres of influence.
· Team members should be encouraged to tackle all decision-making processes and arrive at solutions that will be acceptable to all (i.e. a consensus).
· The team’s work plan should be carefully followed, to eliminate or minimise uncertainties.
· The team should be goal-oriented, and avoid all forms of distraction.
· There should be a stronger sense of commitment in the team
REFERENCES
1. www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/teamsuv
2. Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 Forming Storming Norming Performing Team Development Model, www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF TUCKMAN TEAM ASSESSMENT TEST CARRIED OUT ON NIGERIA AACE TEAM
I had earlier done a Team Assessment of Nigeria AACE using Tuckman’s model, and had the following scores: Forming = 28; Storming = 29; Norming = 23 and Performing = 24 (The Test was limited to the first four stages. See Attachment below for details).
The above scores show that in my opinion, NigeriaAACE Team is in the Storming stage (highest score of 29).
Some observable behaviours and/or actions that formed the basis for my scores are as follows:
1. The Team members are very forthcoming in bringing up ideas on how to make their work easier, but we end up either not using such ideas or there are many of them conflicting with one another, hence the decision-making process becomes more tasking.
2. Occasionally, we have realised that the tasks at hand have not always been what we thought they will be, even though we are all eager to get them accomplished.
3. Despite all the stress involved, our PgMs & PMs still assume their leadership roles in getting team members to do their work, and actually make personal contributions to work progress.
4. Sometimes we set goals that may not be achievable, bearing in mind our tight schedules (might be because we want to make up for lost time).
5. In our haste to catch up with time, we often forget to go back and check the provisions of our documents like the Team Governance Agreement, Project Plan, etc.
6. So far, we have put in a lot of time, money and energy (even our families are feeling the heat!), but there doesn’t seem to be any appreciable/commensurate output, in terms of deliverables.
7. Though there is a great clarity of purpose in the team (each member understands what is required of him), there are still lots of uncertainties
In this Storming stage of team development where NigeriaAACE currently sits, the recommended leadership style is: coaching (or instructing). In addition, in order to accelerate Team progress:
· Every team member should consider himself a leader by all respects, and act as such within their own spheres of influence.
· Team members should be encouraged to tackle all decision-making processes and arrive at solutions that will be acceptable to all (i.e. a consensus).
· The team’s work plan should be carefully followed, to eliminate or minimise uncertainties.
· The team should be goal-oriented, and avoid all forms of distraction.
· There should be a stronger sense of commitment in the team
REFERENCES
1. www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/teamsuv
2. Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 Forming Storming Norming Performing Team Development Model, www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF TUCKMAN TEAM ASSESSMENT TEST CARRIED OUT ON NIGERIA AACE TEAM
1. Forming Stage
Question No.: 1 5 10 15 18 21 27 29
Score: 5 4 2 4 5 2 3 1
Total Score: 26
2. Storming Stage
Question No.: 2 7 9 16 20 23 28 31
Score: 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 2
Total Score: 29
Question No.: 2 7 9 16 20 23 28 31
Score: 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 2
Total Score: 29
3. Norming Stage
Question No. 4 6 11 13 19 24 25 30
Score: 5 2 1 5 4 1 3 2
Total Score: 23
Question No. 4 6 11 13 19 24 25 30
Score: 5 2 1 5 4 1 3 2
Total Score: 23
4. Performing Stage
Question No.: 3 8 12 14 17 22 26 32
Score: 3 1 3 5 1 4 4 3
Total Score: 26
Question No.: 3 8 12 14 17 22 26 32
Score: 3 1 3 5 1 4 4 3
Total Score: 26
November 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)