Project management
The size of the team
At the start of the Enterprising Communities (EC) project, the team consisted of 9 people one of whom was half time. The team included people with a range of skills including: business support, agriculture and horticulture, cultural industries, marketing, tourism, working with people recovering from long term metal illness, environmental issues and poverty alleviation. All the original team members stayed with the project for Phase 1 (2002 - 2004).
Over the course of Phase 2 three of the original team members got new jobs, two went on maternity leave and two reduced their working hours to half time. EC found it difficult to either recruit maternity cover or to find full time replacement staff due to generalised skills shortages in Cumbria. Eventually EC recruited two new team members. In effect, Phase 2 of the project was delivered by 6 FTE staff, nearly one third less than originally envisaged. The team met, and in some cases, exceeded its target at the expense of long working hours for some team members.
How EC managed the project?
In order to effectively cover the large geographic distances in Cumbria, EC ran the project out of three offices: a central office in Penrith, a West Cumbria office in Workington, and a South Lakes office based at Lowick School. The sheer distances between project areas meant that day-to-day decision making was devolved to team members, who developed their style and case load in response to the needs and opportunities that arose in their areas. This devolved management and project design fuelled enthusiasm and commitment, and allowed team members to build on their strengths. Importantly this style mostly suited the culture of the team who were mainly self-starting individuals, keen to grow their area and make a difference.
How EC communicated?
Geographic distance and the devolved structure made close communication within the team, and team working an ideal rather than a reality. Much of the work took place outside the office, so even those who worked in the same office found that there was not as much informal communication as there would have been in an office where everybody was there on a daily basis. This resulted in all team members feeling, at sometime or other, not up-to-date with what their colleagues were doing.
E-mail and phone and the shared file server bridged this ‘communication gap’, to some extent. Also the office manager played a pivotal role in supporting the ‘remote’ workers. However due to an inadequate ICT budget, the ICT systems consistently under-performed leading to resentment and under-use of systems designed to keep information flows between the team free flowing. The result was some fragmentation of team working
The team had regular monthly up-dating meetings as a way to bridge the communication gap. Though the team felt a need for these meetings, they were not necessarily enjoyable and often too long and boring. The team never came up with a formula that consistently worked well for all, even though the agenda and content of these team meetings were constantly under review.
How EC improved the skills of the team?
EC took team training seriously and attempted to continuously upgrade its skills, knowledge and learning. One team member completed a MSt in Community Enterprise at the University of Cambridge; six achieved NVQ4 in Business & Advice and SFEDI accreditation; one NVQ 3 in Information Management and SFEDI accreditation; five received Basic Business Skills training, one completed a four-year Transactional Analysis course, two were mentored on their training/facilitation skills and delivery, three received ‘negotiation without confrontation’ training, one participatory appraisal training, one community development training, and all received legal structures and social audit training.