Hello Colleagues! How was your summer vocation? Productive??? )))
See All of you on Monday. And Good Luck!
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Conclusion
3.5 0ur experience of working as a team has shown us that there is no such person as ‘the perfect team member’. We all bring skills and challenges to the group. No one individual can be sensitive and forceful, dynamic and patient, decisive and reflective all at the same time. The personality test and Belbin test showed us that we have plenty of talented members but maybe, as a group of self-selected garden design students, some characteristics were more dominant and some were lacking. Out of seven of us we have at least two whose dominant traits are those of shapers and at least another two whose main characteristics are those of plants plus one resource instigator. There is no-one who, even as a secondary trait, fulfils the typical characteristics of a chairman. Belbin (1981, p.80) describes a team made up of such members as ‘a formula for a talking shop in which no one listens, follows up any of the points, or makes any decisions about what to do.’ I think many of us would recognise that this was what was happening during the initial meetings. Fortunately, people have secondary traits which also come in to play when circumstances make it necessary. A number of people had the characteristics of team worker, company worker and implementer as secondary traits which enabled a more consensus-based approach to be successful to bring the project to a conclusion
PDMF Report - missing elements
1.1 Opinions as to whether the Fountain creates an appropriate atmosphere for a memorial are divided in the team. Some think that it is a beautiful and engaging construction that invites further exploration and contemplation. Others think that it is rather gutter-like, sits awkwardly in the space and does not encourage one to linger.
1.5 What worked: A Memorial Fountain has been built which has become a controversial talking point much as Diana’s life had been.
It is beautiful and accessible. It is more engaging than a traditional fountain or a fountain sited in the Serpentine would have been.
The way the stone has been cut to shape the water is very effective.
Surprises: That such experienced and high-calibre people could get the project management so wrong. There seems to have been an expectation that emotion, good will and good intention would get the job done when, in fact, those are not enough and may even be obstacles.
3.5.3 Carolyn’s lessons learnt
I can’t recall working in an artificially created team before. Where I have worked with others, it has been a self-selected group seeking to achieve a commonly desired goal. In this case, I think we made progress once we had clarified the outcome we were pursuing. Establishing a clear set of ground rules and expectations at the start would have made the early meetings more productive. In order to assign roles to team members who you don’t know well it is necessary to do, at least, some type of ‘get to know you’ process or a more formal team profiling.
4 References
Belbin, R.M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
ECHarris (2006)A report on the delivery of the project to construct the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. London: ECHarris
City of Westminster (2010) Statues and Monument in Westminster. Available at: http://www.westminster.gov.uk (accessed 3/2/11)
1.5 What worked: A Memorial Fountain has been built which has become a controversial talking point much as Diana’s life had been.
It is beautiful and accessible. It is more engaging than a traditional fountain or a fountain sited in the Serpentine would have been.
The way the stone has been cut to shape the water is very effective.
Surprises: That such experienced and high-calibre people could get the project management so wrong. There seems to have been an expectation that emotion, good will and good intention would get the job done when, in fact, those are not enough and may even be obstacles.
3.5.3 Carolyn’s lessons learnt
I can’t recall working in an artificially created team before. Where I have worked with others, it has been a self-selected group seeking to achieve a commonly desired goal. In this case, I think we made progress once we had clarified the outcome we were pursuing. Establishing a clear set of ground rules and expectations at the start would have made the early meetings more productive. In order to assign roles to team members who you don’t know well it is necessary to do, at least, some type of ‘get to know you’ process or a more formal team profiling.
4 References
Belbin, R.M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
ECHarris (2006)A report on the delivery of the project to construct the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. London: ECHarris
City of Westminster (2010) Statues and Monument in Westminster. Available at: http://www.westminster.gov.uk (accessed 3/2/11)
Sunday, 20 February 2011
PDMF Report
Hi Everyone,
As you know, the report is due in on Friday 25th and we're aiming to hand it in on Thursday when we're in. The last thing we'll have to do on Thursday is allocate a proportion of 100% to everyone. We could all have 14.3% or, as was agreed initially we can devise a way to convert our (secret) scoring of each other into a proportion that reflects the average of our scores. I have some of the best brains in Mayfield working out how to do this - just hope a heavy lunch doesn't interfere with their sums.
Many thanks to Nick and Zana for producing material for the report. I've done some editing and I think everyone needs to contribute their voice for the following elements:
•1.1 We are asked about the 'atmosphere' of the built product - does anyone have a contribution?
•1.4 We are asked for the group's assessment of how the teams and processes worked together. Does anyone have anything more to say on this?
•1.5 For the judgement part I've suggested at table to show what worked, what didn't and surprises. We have a good list of what didn't work but could do with some appreciative comments, afterall, it is there, working, attracting visitors. Any fans out there willing to make a comment?
•3.5.3 Asks 'what ideas might you translate to your individual work'. Can we all write a short paragraph on what we have learnt from studying the PDMF and working as a team and let Zana have it as soon as possible?
•4 References. Forward these to Zana.
Carolyn
As you know, the report is due in on Friday 25th and we're aiming to hand it in on Thursday when we're in. The last thing we'll have to do on Thursday is allocate a proportion of 100% to everyone. We could all have 14.3% or, as was agreed initially we can devise a way to convert our (secret) scoring of each other into a proportion that reflects the average of our scores. I have some of the best brains in Mayfield working out how to do this - just hope a heavy lunch doesn't interfere with their sums.
Many thanks to Nick and Zana for producing material for the report. I've done some editing and I think everyone needs to contribute their voice for the following elements:
•1.1 We are asked about the 'atmosphere' of the built product - does anyone have a contribution?
•1.4 We are asked for the group's assessment of how the teams and processes worked together. Does anyone have anything more to say on this?
•1.5 For the judgement part I've suggested at table to show what worked, what didn't and surprises. We have a good list of what didn't work but could do with some appreciative comments, afterall, it is there, working, attracting visitors. Any fans out there willing to make a comment?
•3.5.3 Asks 'what ideas might you translate to your individual work'. Can we all write a short paragraph on what we have learnt from studying the PDMF and working as a team and let Zana have it as soon as possible?
•4 References. Forward these to Zana.
Carolyn
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Hi Zana
The first 2 paragraphs are to go on the all ready post page by Sally and I
Also my conclusion and Section £ of the project
The granite stone was quarried by Ennstone Breed Ltd at South Penquite Farm, Blisland, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL30 4LH. shipped to Northern Ireland were it was milled by McConnells and sons
The original contractors Geoffrey Osboune Ltd were replaced by Whitehorse Contractors Ltd who Sub – Contracted out the laying of 840 metres squared of Addastone TP stone with an aluminium restraining edge, this project was completed in a month.
My conclusion for this part of the project is this
The designer used materials which if installed properly would last the test of time as intended. As for the walking in the feature I think this was an oversight but as she states it was never intended for this and more quiet contemplation. The underestimating of the popularity of the memorial where around 5,000 people per hour came to visit the fountain, which like the M25 is inexcusable as well as the poor choice of pathway around the perimeter. The pump a freak of nature or poor for thorough, my thorough is poor planning the grill should have stopped the leaves. The granite I still think is a good choice and only will get better with age. It seems to me that the overall success or failure of the scheme comes down to how competent the contractors installing the feature were! There were a few problems with the pump but this has been solved. The other facture with the failure of this project is how the public have decided to use the space.
Section 3 A study of Your Team
1. Your team Details have been submitted
2. Team’s working methods
The team started off in a very ad-hock manure with one dominate member issuing sections of the project to individuals which they perceived to be appropriate to each person in the group.
A blog was set up and unfortunately this was not used as it was intended and a vast quantity of irrelevant material was posted
Another meeting was held and a more formal structure was unsuccessfully tried to be implemented as members of the team would not follow the layout of the meeting.
Then a very formal meeting happened with a far greater level of susses as the project seamed to move forward after weeks of going over the same ground. In this meeting task’s where allocated to members who wanted to do them, and these where achieved quickly.
Communication was an issue even with the blog as some members would not post their findings on the blog but send by email.
3. How your Team Performed
Following each member of the group completing the Belbin test and the other one (don’t know the name) it was obvious that there was no obvious leader within the group. One was found eventually (which the whole group had mutual respect for and the group started to move forward. The team was disjointed with members overlapping research areas or just ignoring what they were asked to do. Egos where battered and peoples noses were put out of place. The feeling from the whole group is for this project to be completed and never to be looked at again.
4. Did process evolve
Dictatorship didn’t work but it was important to have a strong leader to guide the rest of the group to reach a finished project.
Individual drive seamed to produce the best results.
From the start of the project getting the whole team to move in the same direction rather than pulling in different ways, as well as reducing the faffing and producing results by all members of the group for the deadlines that had been set by the group.
Surprises how badly we worked together, and how members of the group could not follow simple instructions. Also the eventual leader / Chair person was the strong quit type.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
DIANA MEMORIAL
Location
Diana Princess Of Wales Memorial Fountain
West Carriage Drive London W2 2UH
Disabled buggies run free of charge on
Half- hourly trips, and will even drop and pick you
up from your favourite spots.
Appearance
A large Cornish granite ring, with water running around it; which flows in two different directions at different speeds. The ring is designed to sit like a necklace on the contours of the land to represent Diana’s all encompassing approach / personality and how she was like the final piece (of jewellery) that finished us (Britain) in our makeup. It includes 3 bridges which take you to the heart of the fountain.
Atmosphere
An area of quiet contemplation ; next to hustle and bustle of the park – Alexs’ opinion.
An area for quiet contemplation and reflection of life – Sallys’ opinion. 
Time line and other data
Construction begins June 2003
Opened on Schedule July 2004
Cost £3.6m Size 80m x50m
Gustafson Porter's working methods
The design team, Gustafson Porter (GP), state on their website that they are ‘familiar with a wide range of working methods and best practice.’ They describe one of their core strengths as being ‘the ability to deliver high-quality design on prestigious projects, in successful, close relationship with our clients, on time and within budgets.’
At the initial stage of the selection procedure GP would have been asked to ‘describe their attitude towards teamworking’ (from The Royal Parks memo 27/7/01, revised proposal for the design team competition). In the design team interviews, as part of the process of evaluation GP would have been asked about their workload and ability to complete the project to the deadline, the structure and resources of their team and details of the experience of senior personnel responsible for the project.
In the scoring of the three top design teams by the Fountain Design Committee, the quality of key personnel in GP was given the equal highest score with another design team. GP had the highest score in the ‘ability to deliver to programme’ category.
GP expressed their concern about lack of co-ordination between the various parties involved in the contract. For example, GP noted (in a minuted meeting on 18/3/05) that contactors were not working from the latest drawings but from the drawing issued with the tender.
A lot of the subsequent revisions were associated with unexpected visitor numbers and behaviours. GP have presumably refined how they analyse how a construction will be utilised. There were delays caused by the design’s interface with drainage and this level of detailing is likely to have been improved by GP. They had difficulties finding a sub-contractor with the financial credentials to satisfy the appointment procedure. GP are likely to have improved their list of viable sub-contractors.
The re-sculpting of the landform by GP in 2005 resulted in further additional cost and delay. From the minutes of meetings it is apparent that there was a tension between GP wanting to achieve a high quality finished product and budgetary and time constraints that are the main considerations of other parties. For example, with regard to the hardstanding chamber covers, GP wanted to use bespoke expensive covers whereas The Royal Parks favoured a cheaper alternative and re-using an old cover.
The report prepared by EC Harris, built asset consultants, states that ‘serious shortcomings in the original design’ were highlighted in a review for The Royal Parks (TRP). The fountain design was complex and its scale and scope exceeded the original strategic brief. They assert that GP were appointed on the basis of their concept design and not on the basis of design services, as had been the original intention. This resulted in the capacity to develop the concept to meet the brief being severely curtailed. GP, it says, were ‘challenged by the detailed design of the Fountain’ as in order to facilitate the stone cutting they had to produce CNC design files. The lack of clear project ownership, leadership and management may explain why, when TRP tried to constrain costs, GP appealed directly to DCMS.
The City of Westminster has instituted a 10 Year Principle whereby no decision on a memorial will be made until at least 10 years after the death as decisions made too soon after an event ‘can lead to the emotional investment in the subject over-riding issues of aesthetic design or good planning.’ It may well be the case that the GP design team would be similarly wary.
At the initial stage of the selection procedure GP would have been asked to ‘describe their attitude towards teamworking’ (from The Royal Parks memo 27/7/01, revised proposal for the design team competition). In the design team interviews, as part of the process of evaluation GP would have been asked about their workload and ability to complete the project to the deadline, the structure and resources of their team and details of the experience of senior personnel responsible for the project.
In the scoring of the three top design teams by the Fountain Design Committee, the quality of key personnel in GP was given the equal highest score with another design team. GP had the highest score in the ‘ability to deliver to programme’ category.
GP expressed their concern about lack of co-ordination between the various parties involved in the contract. For example, GP noted (in a minuted meeting on 18/3/05) that contactors were not working from the latest drawings but from the drawing issued with the tender.
A lot of the subsequent revisions were associated with unexpected visitor numbers and behaviours. GP have presumably refined how they analyse how a construction will be utilised. There were delays caused by the design’s interface with drainage and this level of detailing is likely to have been improved by GP. They had difficulties finding a sub-contractor with the financial credentials to satisfy the appointment procedure. GP are likely to have improved their list of viable sub-contractors.
The re-sculpting of the landform by GP in 2005 resulted in further additional cost and delay. From the minutes of meetings it is apparent that there was a tension between GP wanting to achieve a high quality finished product and budgetary and time constraints that are the main considerations of other parties. For example, with regard to the hardstanding chamber covers, GP wanted to use bespoke expensive covers whereas The Royal Parks favoured a cheaper alternative and re-using an old cover.
The report prepared by EC Harris, built asset consultants, states that ‘serious shortcomings in the original design’ were highlighted in a review for The Royal Parks (TRP). The fountain design was complex and its scale and scope exceeded the original strategic brief. They assert that GP were appointed on the basis of their concept design and not on the basis of design services, as had been the original intention. This resulted in the capacity to develop the concept to meet the brief being severely curtailed. GP, it says, were ‘challenged by the detailed design of the Fountain’ as in order to facilitate the stone cutting they had to produce CNC design files. The lack of clear project ownership, leadership and management may explain why, when TRP tried to constrain costs, GP appealed directly to DCMS.
The City of Westminster has instituted a 10 Year Principle whereby no decision on a memorial will be made until at least 10 years after the death as decisions made too soon after an event ‘can lead to the emotional investment in the subject over-riding issues of aesthetic design or good planning.’ It may well be the case that the GP design team would be similarly wary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)