Task: Questions to answer:
Q1. How will the team perform ( high performance, meeting expectations, underperforming)? Why did you describe them this way?
Q2. What is the team's history working together and where is the team now in its development?
Q3. What things are affecting the Intenscare team's outcomes?
Q4. What is at Stake and dependent on the success of the team?
Article: It was just six months away from MediSys's planned August 2009 launch of IntensCare, their new remote monitoring system for use in hospitals' intensive care units. The company was investing $20.5 million in the new system, which represented the most ambitious project in the company's 10-year history. Valerie Merz, marketing manager for IntensCare, was feeling enormous pressure as she reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the product development team. Once again there was no scheduled time to resolve the debate over the modular design that she knew was critical to successful adoption and long-term success in the market. Without this modularity, she was certain that the system would lose market share to the competition's forthcoming products, both scheduled for release within the year. And it wasn't just her P&L that would take the hit; the team, and the whole company, would look second-rate. "Why isn't Jack stepping up on this issue and getting it resolved?" Merz wondered. Jack Fogel, senior production manager, was the project lead for IntensCare, but in Merz's opinion, he was far too focused on the details of the product side and far too little concerned about the business issues and the impending launch. Perhaps it was time for her to blow the whistle and get the bosses involved. How else could she get her colleagues to do the right thing for the company and not just for their own departments? MediSys Corp., a privately held U.S.-based medical device manufacturer, was founded in 2002. Its annual revenues in 2008 were $400 million, and the company employed 1,750 people.1 The company developed, manufactured and sold medical monitoring systems for the hospital segment. MediSys's first two products were highly successful specialty pulmonary and renal monitoring systems. Though still relatively small, the company was very profitable. Its entrepreneurial culture fostered innovative thinking across the company, and as a result, numerous promising initiatives were at various stages of development-from redesign to the development of new systems. However, the board of MediSys saw early signs that growth was slowing. Two well-known public competitors, with deep pockets and strong reputations in the industry, had announced they were moving into MediSys's key markets with products designed to compete with IntensCare. A similar competitive response seemed likely as MediSys launched future products as well. Partly to counter this threat, an aggressive new president, Art Beaumont, was hired in January 2008 to sharpen strategic focus while preserving the innovative culture and restimulating rapid growth. Within weeks, Beaumont introduced a series of changes. As shown in the MediSys organization chart (see Exhibit 1), the company continued to be organized functionally; however, Beaumont created an Executive Committee consisting of his five direct reports: the vice presidents of sales and marketing, research & development, design and engineering, production, and administration. His intention was to develop them into an executive team that would jointly create and implement a strategy for growing the business swiftly. His early months on the job convinced him that, despite the entrepreneurial culture, some of these managers had become entrenched in their functional roles and that progress could take some time. While he worked on shaping his management team, Beaumont also formalized a process for product development. He believed that MediSys could outmaneuver its larger, richer competitors by speeding product development through the use of cross-functional teams. Speed was the key. Once these specifications were finalized, they were passed on to the production group, which arranged for the fabrication and assembly of the products. In August 2008, Beaumont introduced a new parallel system for product development in which a "core team" of people assembled from all the critical functions-R&D, Marketing & Sales, Product Engineering, Software Design, Regulatory, and Production-worked together continuously to move a product from conceptual stage to final production. For every core team, a project leader was designated to orchestrate its work, keep an eye on the complete project, secure resources for the team, and serve as a liaison to senior management. Beaumont believed that the project leader needed to have cross-functional expertise, a track record of high performance, and the respect of his or her colleagues. Most of MediSys's professional employees embraced the cross-functional team design and parallel development process. Conceptually, it fit their entrepreneurial and team-like approach, though it was more disciplined and formal than they were used to. They understood that parallel development required new ways of thinking and behaving, particularly in relationship to the functional areas that had grown up with the company. "Parallel development doesn't allow people to single-mindedly defend the position of their functional area," one employee noted, "or what's easiest or best or cheapest for their own functional area. It forces people to look at the bigger picture." While requiring that functions look at the "bigger picture," parallel development did not alter the way reporting and evaluation occurred. All employees, including core team members, continued reporting to their functional managers who continued to supervise and evaluate them. Art Beaumont recognized that the management style of all the MediSys executives would also have to change in a parallel development environment: I know I am asking these folks to give up control, which will be hard for them in the context of this major investment. But as the company has grown, a management style has evolved here that doesn't reflect the entrepreneurial spirit that everyone loves to brag about. It has become much more of a command-and-control culture with an emphasis on technical excellence. Not that we don't need that, but the competition has become intense and our reputation is on the line, so we need all the brain power and discretionary effort we can get. I think that cross-functional teams are the only way to get that. But it will be challenging for my direct reports and me to change our styles to be more patient, open, and trusting, and not to intervene. History of the IntensCare Project IntensCare had developed in typical MediSys fashion (see Exhibit 2 for a time line of this product development effort). In September 2006, Aaron Gerson from the R&D group had the idea for a patient monitoring system that would collect data on patients in intensive care units and post it to an electronic database that could provide an integrated profile of an individual patient's health and would also send email messages to various physicians and nurses involved in the patient's care. He pitched this concept to Peter Fisher, a friend in Sales, who tested it with clients and found great interest. The two invited a third friend from Software Design (who later left the company) to chat with them about how this might work, and before long an ad hoc product development group had organized itself informally to develop this opportunity.