Medisys - Responsibility Without Authority free essay sample

How has MediSys ended up where it is now? While MediSys had grown to become a $400m firm with 1,750 employees, in 2008, it was at a crossroads. The firm’s highly effective entrepreneurial culture had been stymied by size and bureaucracy. At about this time, the firm hired a new President, Art Beaumont, who instituted a change in the New Product Development process. Instead of a traditional linear progression, product development would now be handled by cross functional teams comprised of key representatives from each business silo. The strength of this new approach was believed to be significant: †¢ All of the firm’s critical functions represented †¢ Leadership strength with cross-functional expertise †¢ Reintroduction of an entrepreneurial / team approach †¢ The avoidance of single-minded focus in one’s particular area of expertise Though it began under the traditional system, IntensCare became one of the first products to shift into the new cross-functional development system. This also represented the firm’s largest and most ambitious single project – with a 10-year time line and . We will write a custom essay sample on Medisys Responsibility Without Authority or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page 5 million in total investment. Despite the positive changes brought about at MediSys, there are a number of cracks in the veneer that are now playing out as the firm struggles to complete product development and launch IntensCare. On a macro level, these can be broken into several main categories: †¢ New product development approach does not mesh with the balance of the firm’s operations †¢ Employees and team members that are spread too thin Bifurcated culture of long time employees (â€Å"friends†) and outsiders/newcomers †¢ Lack of ultimate responsibility and/or responsibility without authority The idea of modifying the product development process was legitimate, forward thinking, and seemingly well accepted among employees. However, whereas this aspect of the business process was radically changed, the rest of the firm’s operations were not adapted to mesh. Although the cross functional product development teams worked more or less outside the firm’s traditional structure, the team members still reported to management under the traditional system. This removed, or at least greatly reduced, the level of accountability of each team member. The case study also revealed the recurring theme that employees were spread too thin as a result of economic conditions and requisite cutbacks in staffing. While this may have been unavoidable, it seems to have been overlooked when setting timeline goals for the team’s launch of IntensCare. A chasm existed between the old guard – those employees who had been there for many years and had developed close â€Å"friendships†, and the outsiders – those who were either newly hired (notably Valerie Merz) or those who were seen as obstacles to the process (Karen Baio). Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the new structure didn’t clearly define responsibility for the project success. The team leader (Jack Fogel) was notionally in charge of the process yet there seemed to be no direct consequence for failure (long term, perhaps his reputation would be damaged but short term, less so). Conversely, Valerie Merz, who was not the team leader, seems positioned to bear the full brunt of failure yet was given no authority over the process. In summary, MediSys is a well established firm with a solid track record of success. Having grown dramatically over the past decade, it is faced with challenges to the product design process and, even though the new president reacted to those challenges by modifying structures, they are reeling from an incomplete solution, unintended consequences, and personality conflicts. Are people doing all they can to work together? Due to many of the issues discussed previously, the team’s communication has been challenged and the effectiveness of their efforts severely compromised. Although each individual would likely report that they are â€Å"trying† or â€Å"doing their best† to work together, this clearly is not the case. There were several key issues that undermined their ability to work collaboratively: †¢ Poor leadership communication †¢ Team members withholding information/lack of trust Differing motivations †¢ Failure to leverage resources and self-advocate †¢ Meetings on the wrong day of the week Below is a brief discussion of each, with examples from the Case Study. Leadership/Communication: Fogel, as team leader, sees himself as the center of the team’s communication but is failing to facilitate an open and honest dialogue. A glaring example of this is how he often held separate meetings and brainstorm ing sessions with specific individuals – overtly hiding these meetings from the larger group. He also seems to have let his â€Å"friendships† with select team members influence how he dealt with Merz and others. Lastly, despite being the â€Å"leader† he likely knows that there are limited direct/immediate consequences for failure thus his motivations may not be aligned with the team as a whole. Transparency: Throughout this Case Study there was a consistent lack of transparency which manifested individually, within sub-groups, and in the (lack of) accurate reporting to upper management. The reasons for this varied based on personal motivation, lack of appropriate structure, and possibly, simple oversight. Perhaps the best example of lacking transparency surrounds the development of the IntensCare â€Å"module concept†. While Merz knew the module approach wouldn’t be ready until a second version, she wanted to push the group as far as she could. At the same time, O’Brien had no intention of working on the module concept but wasn’t willing to be open about this to Merz. Another example of lack of transparency surrounded the outsourcing of IT to India. Despite the fact that Mukerjee understood the challenges, he wasn’t clear about these to the larger group and over time, even held back scheduling information that was crucial to other functions. Motivations: Clearly, motivations were not aligned. Merz’s sole responsibility for the next three years (and indeed, the reason behind her being hired) is the success of IntensCare. Conversely, all of the other team members had a wider range of responsibilities within the firm. Although some motivational differences within a team are unavoidable (or even necessary, as in the case of Karen Baio who handled regulatory issues), there was a gulf between the motivations of the other team members, especially when contrasted with those of Merz. Leveraging/Self Advocating: Mukerjee knew from the start that he would not have adequate resources to work on the project domestically. However, rather than advocating for himself and either obtaining adequate resources or modifying the overall timeline to account for outsourcing IT, he acted unilaterally. This lack of self advocating was also demonstrated by others on the team as they had to grapple with being spread too thin to devote adequate resources towards the IntensCare project. Even though the team members hold ultimate responsibility for this, it could also be a reflection of a heavy handed top down leadership style from Beaumont. Meeting Time: Based on the collective experiences of San Francisco Group 1, we believe that Fogel should have chosen a different day of the week to hold meetings. For a major project, Friday is not the best day of the week and many team members had conflicts. Additionally, because of the difference in time zones, a Friday meeting in the US lands on a Saturday in India, making it difficult for the overseas BPO component of the team to participate effectively. In summary, while the collective skill sets of the team were clearly evident, the combination of structure, leadership, and lack of open communication conspired to undermine the ability of this team to work together. What are the forces that have contributed to the situation at the end of the case? While many of the factors that contributed broadly to the situation at the end of the case have been described through the prior two responses, the main culprit is clear: Valerie Merz had ultimate responsibility but no authority to lead and Fogel, had authority to lead but proved ineffectual At the end of the case, Merz passes by a conference room and overhears an internal meeting between the team lead, Fogel, and O’Brien, the senior engineer. Encapsulated in that short exchange is the very essence of the problem – poor leadership which has led to a collapse in effective communication at every level. Let’s take a closer look: â€Å"get that woman off my back† – highlights the derogatory and antagonistic nature of the relationship between Merz and the rest of the team. If Fogel were effectively leading, this would never have come to pass and regardless, wouldn’t be tolerated. â€Å"on the modular issue† – the white elephant throughout the process, whereby two sides, diametrically opposed, have refused to have an open, honest dialogue. If Fogel were leading and if all (including Merz) were confident in the team’s collective abilities, this issue could have been vetted and built into a realistic timeline to include a second product generation. â€Å"no way I can (meet) the scheduled milestone† – an example of the team being spread too thin yet an inability or an unwillingness to broadly address the issue to the team as well as up the ladder to upper management. â€Å"even worse delays†¦ Indian software team† – an example of the negative impact of unilateral decision making by Mukerjee and the resulting lack of buy-in and support from the larger group. Had the group been adequately educated about this situation early on, everyone could have supported it and could now be working to solve the problem. While Mukerjee holds a high degree of responsibility, so too does Fogel who should have been the final arbiter in the decision to outsource. â€Å"we’ll get your boss and mine in here and give them a straight story† – an example of the mixed up role of reporting between the legacy organizational structure and the new, cross-functional product development strategy. It’s also likely the reason that although Beaumont realizes there are some issues, he has no idea of the magnitude and impact on the project timeline. Although Merz’s personality and management style certainly play into the dynamics, the overriding feature remains a lack of quality leadership from Fogel and the contradicting motivations between the team members; all against a backdrop that has come to disallow open, honest, transparent communication.