From: Mike Barker <mbarker@mit.edu>
To: itlt-feedback@mit.edu
Subject:  Staffing Teams in the New Framework
--------

From "What do we mean by teams?":

"A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are
committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach, for
which they hold themselves mutually accountable."

"Groups become teams through disciplined action.  They shape a common
purpose, agree on performance goals, define a common working approach,
develop high levels of complementary skills, and hold themselves
mutually accountable for results.  And, as with any effective
discipline, they never stop doing these things."

and so on...

Why am I quoting from that document in commenting on how to staff teams?

Because I think there is a clue there as to what the relationship of the
ITLT (or other "chartering" body) and the teams should be.  

If we consider a team to be a group that:

    1. shares a common purpose
    2. agrees on performance goals
    3. defines a common working approach
    4. develops high levels of complementary skills, and
    5. holds themselves mutually accountable for results

It seems reasonable clear to me that the main thing the "chartering
body" provides is an assignment around which the team forms.  This
"statement of purpose" may include indications of boundaries (what is
in or out of scope) and other limitations on the operations.  It
probably also includes suggestions of how the chartering body expects
the team to report results.

The "chartering body" may also periodically confirm that the common
purpose derived from that assignment, the performance goals, the working
approach, the skills, and the results are sufficiently in line with the
expectations of the "chartering body" as to what this team would be
doing.

However, while the "chartering body" may provide resources, advice, and
expertise on performing the five key tasks, the team must do these tasks
by and for itself.  Even if the "chartering body" provides detailed
directions and specifications for these, the team itself must "take
responsibility" for each of these, typically reviewing, rewriting, and
converting them into their own terms.

I think the ITLT (or other chartering body) can provide various levels
of sponsorship and resources.  The assignments, deliverables, timelines,
and so forth can be at various stages of definition.  Even the resources
(human and otherwise) for the project may be tightly controlled or not.

One of the critical factors, though, is that the team take charge of
whatever is provided in the way of resources, requirements, and
conditions.  One of the surest signs that the team has dug in and
started working is when it renegotiates the project or assignment--often
to the dismay of the chartering body!

So, I would recommend that any external assignment or allocation of
resources to a team be minimal and fairly tentative until the team
itself begins to organize.

This should NOT need a lot of time.  Particularly if given some
assistance in methods of planning and organizing, a team dealing with a
standing assignment or problem should be able to quickly define how they
expect to work on it, what resources are needed, etc.  New teams may
need a bit more start up time and assistance, and we should leave some
flexibility for adjusting as the team tries out the processes they are
defining.

"We want to settle initial assignments as soon as possible, moreover, so
that teams can get to work."

"We can't begin to match people and assignments until we know for sure
what the seats are on teams and what the descriptions are of any new
positions that are required."

Both of these sentences suggest some kind of magic flag day, when the
teams, positions, and so forth throughout the IT group are well-defined
and we all start to play.

I don't believe it will happen that way.

Instead, I expect that the ITLT and other planning teams will have to do
parts at a time, with some mistakes and learning as we go.  Further,
even parts that have changed may have to change again as assignments
complete, others begin, and other shifts occur.

I do agree that planning for positions--for head count--requires us to
have some estimates of what will be needed.  Further, to provide the
training and skills transfer that the human relations principles call
for, we need some estimates of the various assignments, seats, hats, and
so on.

So let's estimate it.  Start with the team assignments--what kinds of
work are we asking the teams to perform?  With the ITLT (or planning
teams) cooperation, we can take a first cut at the numbers and kinds of
staffing needed to do that work.  

Then let's start the teams and see what they come up with as detailed
plans.

We can also start looking at ways of aggregating and projecting the
resource needs based on plans provided by the teams for review.

"Teams have to account for and communicate about outcomes, use of time
and other resources, opportunities, priorities."

Get them started.

Give them ways to provide the information needed and aggregate for the
ITLT rather than trying to create and distribute the information from
the ITLT.

Mike