As we strive in Higher Education to find more effective methods for providing services, many institutions are turning to management techniques such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and the use of teams as methods to analyze and improve their work processes. Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Quality Improvement Processes (QIP) and other 'catch phrases' have become part of our regular vocabulary as we struggle to finds techniques to help us improve our delivery of services. These re-engineering efforts, while promoted as providing better student services are often also being driven by a desire to lower costs and reduce staffing levels. Institutions are facing a changing landscape where the practices of the past and the costs of those practices are no longer economically feasible. Schools must investigate and develop alternative methods in the delivery of services. Many are turning toward an increased use of computer technology to ultimately lower costs and to enable quicker access to information for students. As institutions 'automate' and re-engineer processes, cross-functional teams can provide a way to not only achieve the goal of eliminating redundant or out of date processes, but can also act as a mechanism that increases worker satisfaction as well as the processes themselves.
     Why use teams to address issues of waste, redundancy and streamline processes? What can be done to ensure that members of the team are on task and performing their responsibilities? What should we look for in creating teams in a challenging changing environment? These are several of the initial questions that I hope to answer in this paper.
 

     Why are institutions and businesses turning to teams to analyze and improve processes? One obvious reason is that the individuals who daily perform the tasks best know the pros and cons of the process. These are the individuals best in touch with how change will impact those being serviced. While it would seem obvious that changes to processes should include input from those performing the task, a typical hierarchical organization structure does not seek this type of input. In addition, many organizations turn to teams as a last resort after other techniques fail:

     Other issues related to the use of teams are the needs of people in the workplace. Individuals need a sense of belonging and of control over their environment. Use of teams can help bridge the feeling of fear that comes during a time of change or uncertainty. Allowing individuals to have a voice in how policy or processes should be implemented gives them both the opportunity for interaction with others as well as a sense of 'personal belonging' (Sashkin and Shaskin, 1994).

     Perhaps one of the most important aspects of moving to and effectively using a team is related to an understanding of value of the synergy of a group or team. This synergy or interaction creates a 'whole that is greater than the sum of the parts' (Kreisberg, 1992, p. 81). Individuals are 'enhanced' as a part of the whole and the whole is in a much better position to effect positive change. Groups or teams that are functioning with a clear purpose (and with active participation where the goals or outcomes are clearly defined) allow for better decisions to be made as well as enabling better communications to other areas of the organization. Cross-funcional teams are particularly effective in ensuring that modified processes will not adversely affect any one area.

     Clear goals or a sense of purpose need to be established in order for a team to be successful and to achieve any appreciable results (Pritchett & Pound, 1992). These should be established prior to the formation of the team or if that's not possible, as quickly as possible. The goals may ultimately be imposed by the need of the organization or by a superior, but the team should select the path to success. An example would be a goal re-engineering of an enrollment process where the members are charged with developing the revised process. The goal in this instance was set outside the team but the method to achieve the goal is framed by the team. The methods to be used can be identified by brainstorming or some other technique which not only serves the purpose of attaching a method to achieving the goals but also assists in building cohesion among the members of the team as issues of commonality become evident.
     Not having a clear goal can cause a team to be ineffective in achieving anything other than marginal results. We all have experience with ineffective teams, possibly ineffective in large part because the goal was unclear or undefined. Goals or expectations need to be clear and achievable. The team needs to have a common sense of purpose from which to build.

     Creating teams means more than just the initial selection of members for a particular function. It also means creating an organization where teams develop and promote effective linkages across teams with the ultimate goal of achieving satisfaction of customers (Shaskin and Shaskin, p.36). However, the selection of the 'right' team members is extremely important. Selection should be made with an eye to achieving the best possible results (Pritchert & Pound, 1992). The right people in the first place can greatly assist in the development of the synergy mentioned earlier. However, teams should not necessarily be formed as permanent appendages to the organization (Shashin and Shaskin). There are some situations where a temporary team is quite effective in achieving one specific task, and if it needs to be reformed, different players may make more positive contributions. The shifting, changing nature of organizational needs should be the primary determiner of who would make the best contribution to a team.

     In this brief paper, I have attempted to address several questions I have regarding teams and their possible implications for success. While I am still coming to understand many of the issues relayed above, I believe that essentially they are related to power and communications. My own particular interest in teams is directly related to my own experience at Carnegie Mellon for the last few years. The Enrollment Group went through a rather radical transformation two years ago that resulted in a restructuring of 6 offices into one. The aftershock of this change is still being felt by many of the individuals who were affected. Having been a member of several teams which worked through the restructuring process, I have had the opportunity to see teams where members achieved a great deal as well as teams that failed to achieve any success. Some of this is, I believe related to the nature of the selection of the team members as well as the level of autonomy granted to specific teams. While upper management and middle management were trained in TQM, often the most effective teams were those comprised of people who had no formal team training and just somehow knew how to work together.

     The implication here is that there are general guidelines that can, in many instances facilitate team work, but each group is as different as each individual. Each is shaped by it's own internal views, frames of reference to issues, and ability to work internally. I plan on continuing to read what I can about teamwork since I am of the opinion that it offers the most collegial method of effecting change and improving processes.

Kreisberg, Seth, (1992). Transforming Power: Domination, Empowerment and Education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
     (pp 78-81).

Pritchett, Price and Pound, Ron (1992). Team Reconstruction, Building a HighPerformance Work Group During Change.
     Dallas, TX: Pritchett Publishing Company.

Sashkin, Marshall & Sashkin, Molly G. (1994). The New Teamwork: Developing and Using Cross-function Teams. New
     York, NY: American Management Association