Case Study
A global company, X3T Ltd., is developing a software tool for the travel industry. The project team consists of 20 members located in South Korea and 30 members located in several Canadian cities (Victoria – 9 members, Ottawa – 14 members, and Mirabel – 7 members). Korean team members have previously developed similar tools and understand the application environment. Even though Canadian team members have the required skills and expertise in a variety of IT technologies, they do not have previous experience with applications developed exclusively for the travel industry.
The project schedule is very aggressive; the project is scheduled to be completed in 12 months. In addition, there are several technical issues to be resolved before the design effort can be finalized.
The project manager is worried. The team missed three important milestones in the last three months. When discussing the situation with team leads, the aggressive schedule is usually blamed for the project delays. The project manager thinks otherwise. He noticed that Korean and Canadian teams frequently wait on the other team to provide information or to make a decision. As result, valuable time is missed and the schedule is slipping. The manager decides to meet with each team separately to discuss collaboration issues.
The following are project manager’s notes captured during the team meetings.
Korean Team
• 20 team members – all working from the same office
• Team members have been working together for several years and have very good working relationships. Everyone feels included regardless of his or her position.
• Internally, information is exchanged both formally and informally.
• The project is very important to the Korean team. They want to be successful so that their division is recognized as the leader in software development for the travel industry.
• Each team member can perform different tasks and act as a backup for others when required.
Issues reported:
• Language. Problems with verbal communication. Many team members are not proficient in English and prefer written communication (example: emails).
• Waiting too long for responses from the Canadian team. If a delay in communication is affecting the schedule or quality of the product, they contact the manager of the Canadian team in hopes to get the answer.
• Not sure if Canadians are hiding information? In some cases, attachments are missing; sometimes, only a few team members receive emails from Canada.
• They are often forced to make decisions quickly. At times, they agree to what the Canadian team is proposing just to be polite but, in reality, they are still considering a proposal/recommendation. This leads to misunderstandings later.
• They are very concerned about project delays. In the past, they never had a similar experience. They are afraid that their reputation and a reputation of their division will be affected negatively if things do not get better.
Canadian Team
• Total: 30 members:
Victoria – 9 members, Ottawa – 14 members, and Mirabel – 7 members
• Team members are organized by function. Almost all team members also work on other projects. Because they are very busy, they share information only on a “need-to-know” basis. Many team members stated that they don’t have time for lengthy emails and discussions. They need decisions to be made quickly so that they can return to their work.
Issues reported:
• They acknowledge that the “other team” is very competent and has the expertise required. The problem is that their roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined. They never know who to contact in Korean team’s office.
• Language barrier. Communication through a “middle man” (someone on the Korean team who is more proficient in English) and/or inability to clearly understand a message/question. They sometimes need to clarify a question several times before they can answer (additional delay).
• Formal communication. They would prefer a phone call instead of an email.
• Canadian team members are not co-located. Difficult to reach stakeholders at times (vacations, business trips, etc.). As result, they are not always able to respond in timely manner to Korean team’s requests and questions. This upsets Korean team members so they go directly to Canadian manager (Canadian team gets upset in return) or they start working on things that are the responsibility of the Canadian team.