![ReferencesBrooks, K. (2010, June) CRO Industry Update. Retrieved from http://www.contractpharma.com/articles/2010/06/cro-industry-updateCollaborative Tools Strategy Task Force Report [Final Draft]. (2008, November 21). Retrieved from University of Washington website: http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/reports/CTSTF_Report_Final_Draft.pdfFolinsbee, S., Jurmo, P. (1994). Collaborative Needs Assessment: A Handbook for Workplace Development Planners. ABC CANADATemplate - http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/CT010145006.aspx#pg:3|ai:TC030006145|24](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/projectpresentationversion2-1final-110803190821-phpapp02/85/Project-presentation-version-2-1-final-24-320.jpg)
Project presentation version 2.1 final
- 1. Needs Assessment and AnalysisCollaboration Improvement ReportMichael Gough, Tracy Karceski, Christina Mayes, Galen Stone, and Daria Vaughn December, 20101
- 2. IntroductionThe client requested a workplace collaboration studyStakeholders wanted to improve collaboration efficiency and effectiveness of teams, task forces and committeesSpecific management concernsDuplication of emails / effortDocument controlEmail etiquette and professionalism2
- 3. CRO Background / PEST Analysis3
- 4. Frame FactorsProject – limits placed by resourcesSix week time-frameNo budgetRemote access to consultantsOrganization – limits placed by cultureBusy schedules of associatesAvailability of billable employeesPrivacy concerns with providing dataStakeholder – limits placed by clientNo disclosure of company-sensitive dataLimited sample for data collectionInternal consultant to serve as mediatorConsultant – limits placed by teamBusy schedules / competing prioritiesMultiple obligations (school, work, family)Internal consultant4
- 5. Project MethodologyApproach3 distinct phasesInitialData collection and analysisFinalMultiple methodsQuantitative and qualitative dataMethods selection (Werner & DeSimone, 2009)ReliabilityConsistency of resultsFreedom from collection method biasValidityDevices measure what should be measuredPracticalityAppropriate resources used to gather data
- 6. Project Methodology, continuedSampleIdentified by clientN= 22 (total sample)N= 5 (Initial interviews)N= 22 (online survey) Management and non-managementResponse rates95% (online survey)100% (initial interviews)Possible bias
- 8. Data Analysis - InterviewsCollaborating face-to-face is preferredLess opportunity for “water cooler” discussions with web conferencingOnline collaboration is better when well planned/managedEmail can be cumbersome8
- 9. Survey DataEmail - most effective tool for online collaboration!Respondents see themselves as savvy with collaboration toolsLots of tools listed!Respondents willing to learn new tools 9
- 10. Data Analysis10
- 12. Positive Findings1. Leadership supportCEO level interestTop-down change management effectiveness of hierarchical corporate structure Utilization of already established Collaboration Task Force2. Existing tools in placeVirtual meeting technology creates a face-to-face meeting environmentLotus Notes built-in collaboration featuresSome existing on-line training available for certain programs/toolsLearning Management System (LMS)12
- 13. Positive Findings, Continued3. IT InfrastructureHighly skilled workers to maintain or build collaborative workspaces Resources available to Monitor security risk and exposure4. Available collaboration systemsInexpensive collaborative tools are available on the web Eliminate geographical time zone barriersShared workspaces connect collaborators and eliminate duplication 5. Employees have high technical skillsEmployees have training options available for collaborative toolsEmployees are interested in learning new tools for collaboration13
- 14. Negative Findings6. CommunicationPreference for face-to-face meetings (mentioned in 3 of 5 interviews)Some lack e-mail etiquetteUnclear task responsibility results in duplication of effortsCultural over-reliance on e-mail (63.6% feel it is most effective tool for collaboration) 7. Existing training not being used to its full potential41% of respondents reported they have received no training Some advocated for more targeted training14
- 15. Negative Findings, Continued8. No best practice for existing tools Too many tools to choose from (22 different tools listed)Confusion over which tool to useLack of tool compatibility Confusion over how to select toolsFunctionality overlap (three types of web conferencing software applications)9. Technological changeConcerns over security breaches Cultural resistance (50% and 68.2% of respondents reported they have not used social networking or online discussion forums)10. Costs associated with not improving collaboration effortsLoss of revenue to competition with better streamlined collaboration tools and faster project turnaroundIncreasing travel costs for face-to-face meetings15
- 19. Recommendation 1Relaunch the Collaboration Task Force to create renewed focus for improving collaboration Regroup to review the results of the needs analysisEncourage buy-in from all CTF membersDetermine division of labor and next stepsCritical Success FactorsTop-down support (management driven)Collaboration Task Force involvementMust promote CEO level interest and encourage employee buy-in19
- 20. Recommendation 2Standardize workplace collaboration toolsResearch best tool for web-conferencingIdentify duplicate toolsCondense tools to eliminate duplicationCritical Success FactorsTop-down support (management driven)Collaboration Task Force involvementMust establish best practices for the organization20
- 21. Recommendation 3Create an approved online collaboration guideList approved tools and explain their intended useIncorporate job aids for each tool but focus on best practices rather than just the basic mechanics of useContinue existing technical training as appropriateCritical Success FactorsTop-down support (management driven)Collaboration Task Force involvementMust be published and communicated company wide21
- 22. Recommendation 4Design a workshop for communicating and managing projects at a distanceHow to overcome the challenges of online collaborationHow to set communication "ground rules" upfrontHow to make everyone feel comfortable with contributing to the conversationHow to choose the best tool(s) for collaboratingCritical Success FactorsTop-down support (management driven)Collaboration Task Force involvementMust be attended or reviewed by all employees22
- 23. Recommendation 5Implement a work-friendly social network or online communitySet ground rules for usageEncourage buy-in from employeesPromote the “water cooler” experienceCritical Success FactorsTop-down support (management driven)Collaboration Task Force involvementMust be regulated and monitored to ensure appropriateness of content23
- 24. ReferencesBrooks, K. (2010, June) CRO Industry Update. Retrieved from http://www.contractpharma.com/articles/2010/06/cro-industry-updateCollaborative Tools Strategy Task Force Report [Final Draft]. (2008, November 21). Retrieved from University of Washington website: http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/reports/CTSTF_Report_Final_Draft.pdfFolinsbee, S., Jurmo, P. (1994). Collaborative Needs Assessment: A Handbook for Workplace Development Planners. ABC CANADATemplate - http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/CT010145006.aspx#pg:3|ai:TC030006145|24