Managing processes through teamwork

Abstract

Efficient teamwork has been shown to be a key element for improving business process performance and, as a consequence, organisational performance. As a result of this, improving management and measurement of team performance has captured the interest of many organisations intending to increase their competitiveness. This paper illustrates some of the research findings of an on-going collaborative research project. It first introduces the idea behind a framework for managing process team performance and later compares this framework with the work that an EFQM winning organisation (2000 European Quality Award prize winner) carried out in order to re-engineer its organisation towards a structure based on processes and teams.

Full text

Business Process Management Journal
Managing processes through teamwork
Kepa Mendibil Telleria Derek Little Jill MacBryde
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kepa Mendibil Telleria Derek Little Jill MacBryde, (2002),"Managing processes through teamwork", Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 338 - 350
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150210434991
Downloaded on: 22 February 2017, At: 06:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4951 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1996),"Teamwork and team leadership", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2
Iss 1 pp. 9-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527599610105484
(2003),"Managing the project management process", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103
Iss 1 pp. 39-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570310456887
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:117974 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
338
Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2002,
pp. 338-350. #MCB UP Limited,
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637150210434991
Managing processes through
teamwork
Kepa Mendibil Telleria, Derek Little and Jill MacBryde
Centre for Strategic Manufacturing, DMEM, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
Keywords BPR, Management, Teams, Performance management, Case studies
Abstract Efficient teamwork has been shown to be a key element for improving business
process performance and, as a consequence, organisational performance. As a result of this,
improving management and measurement of team performance has captured the interest of
many organisations intending to increase their competitiveness. This paper illustrates some of the
research findings of an on-going collaborative research project. It first introduces the idea behind
a framework for managing process team performance and later compares this framework with
the work that an EFQM winning organisation (2000 European Quality Award prize winner)
carried out in order to re-engineer its organisation towards a structure based on processes and
teams.
Introduction
This paper is an outcome of an Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council (EPSRC) funded research project which is being carried out in close
collaboration with four industrial organisations from Scotland. Although coming
from a number of industrial sectors (electronics, food and drink, aeronautics and
construction), competing in different markets (global, national, local) and having
very particular backgrounds (US and British multinationals and privately owned
organisations), they all agreed that their organisations required a more
systematic approach to team performance measurement and management.
In addition, what the researchers noticed was that little research has been
done on performance measurement systems which takes into account the fact
that the majority of re-engineering exercises result in a significant increase in
teamworking in the workplace (Senior, 1997; Bruns, 1992).
What our industrial collaborators have been saying is that they have
invested large sums of money on re-engineering activities which has led them
to adopt a process view of their organisations, and they have bought into the
need for integrated performance measures ± but still they feel that they are not
successfully deploying objectives and performance measures at the team level.
Companies can now measure the performance of their business, business units,
divisions and so on, and some are even successfully measuring the
performance of business processes. But when we get right down to grass roots
level, managers are finding it difficult not only to measure team performance,
but also more importantly, to manage and motive the people within these teams
in a manner that is consistent with the strategy and objectives of the
organisation. Hana et al. (1996) emphasised the importance of measuring team
peformance as a way of changing and improving the behaviour and
performance of individuals.
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
339
Therefore, one of the objectives of this research project was to help the
collaborating organisations by developing an understanding of the issues
related with process and team performance measurement and management.
Background research
The quest for methods to improve business process management has captured
the interest of many organisations over the last decade. Whilst information and
communication technologies are having a very important impact on business
process performance, organisations are still very much dependant on the
capabilities and performance of the teams that are responsible for driving these
processes. Nowadays, virtual infrastructures are an affordable reality thanks to
the improved development of e-technologies and they provide great potential to
considerably improve the efficiency of business processes.
However, whether using face-to-face interaction or e-communication
technologies, organisations require people to think and work together in order
to achieve a synergy that will take the business to a desirable destination.
Virtual business processes will also rely on the performance of virtual teams
across the processes as a means for driving the processes forward. Effective
teamwork and team players will be in higher demand in order to overcome the
challenges of these new infrastructures and to coach, communicate, collaborate
and motivate efficiently other team members (Barekat, 2001).
Organisations have been adopting business process based structures as a
way of improving service and responsiveness in order to re-gain, maintain and
improve competitiveness. This has enabled companies to improve the value
delivered to its stakeholders. One of the most important consequences of
adopting a business process approach has been the move from functional and
hierarchical structures towards business process based structures where the
role of middle managers has disappeared and teamwork has become the key
working practice. Teare et al. (1997) argued that a team concept is central to the
development of process based management and it is one of the few means by
which large business processes can be integrated.
However, in some of these organisations the legacy of the traditional
structures still remains and this has been causing several conflicts with the
new process based approach. Hammer and Stanton (1999) stated that ``the
combination of integrated processes and fragmented organisation has created a
form of cognitive dissonance in many businesses ... confusion and conflict
ensue, undermining performance''. This has resulted in many process and team
inefficiencies, mainly due to the lack of alignment of the team performance with
business process objectives and organisational strategy.
Another issue of concern is the measurement aspect of team performance.
Hammer and Stanton mentioned that traditional ways of measuring
performance, determining compensation, identifying training needs, and even
organising facilities are tailored to vertical units, not processes, and to
individuals, not teams. Zigon (1997) stated that although measuring team
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
340
performance can be difficult for several reasons, it is essential to do so if we
want to ensure that teams are driving the business forward efficiently.
If organisations want teams to make an important contribution towards the
achievement of corporate goals, when measuring team performance companies
need to ensure that these measures are consistent with the organisational goals.
The importance of aligning teamwork with corporate strategy has been
stressed by many researchers in recent years (e.g. Zigon, 1997; Cacciope, 1999;
Zobal, 1998).
In addition, Ingram (1996), Zobal (1998) and Cannon-Bowers and Salas
(1997) among others, stated that in order to obtain an accurate indication of
team performance both the output from the team and the process followed
should be measured. By only measuring actual output without considering
capability, a team leader might be unaware of his/her team's strengths and
weaknesses. Moreover, the team leader might also be unaware that a specific
outcome was achieved by chance or luck. This is not enough to ensure a desired
outcome in future occasions. On the other hand, by only measuring the
processes, teams may lose sight of their goal. As a result of this, a team might
be unaware of the deviation between the expected and the actual outcome.
Finally, even though team level and individual level measures can conflict if
they are not adequately designed, it will be required to monitor both to get a
complete diagnosis of the team performance. Team performance could be
improved by identifying, monitoring and improving individual performance
that contributes to the achievement of the desired team outcomes (Zigon, 1999).
Previous work in the area of team performance measurement (Zigon, 1999;
Jones and Schilling, 2000; Dickinson and McIntyre, 1997) mainly focuses on the
process of creating team performance measures. In the process of creating
measures these methods take the company's strategy and the customers' view
as a starting point and then, deploy these requirements into the team. While
this is an adequate and effective way of deploying measures to the team, we felt
that these methods do not necessarily take into account other aspects that
might be critical for the performance of teams. We believe that alignment with
strategic objectives and customer satisfaction should be the main focus of the
team. However, it is also important to consider and monitor what set of skills,
behaviours, competencies, support and resources the team will need to achieve
the strategy and customer orientated objectives. Therefore, we felt that it would
be beneficial to identify the critical aspects affecting team performance and
incorporate them into a generic framework that could lead to a process for
creating team-based measures. Organisations are still experiencing many
problems in introducing performance management systems that effectively
measure and manage process and team performance and at the same time are
aligned to the strategy of the company. Therefore, the above framework could
help in overcoming some of the current problems while contributing to
improved organisational performance.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
341
Methodology
The objective of the initial phase of the project was to identify and document the
experiences of a cross-section of companies that have experience in developing
and deploying effective performance measurement systems at a team level. In
order to do this a number of research instruments were employed, including
company visits, semi-structured interviews, exploratory research, literature
research and the sharing of experiences from other projects and research groups.
The researchers initiated the project by consolidating the existing knowledge
in this particular area and by formalising links with other experts in the field.
During this time they also identified and contacted several organisations that
are noted in the existing literature as having success in teamwork.
Parallel to this, the researchers analysed the current practices of four
industrial collaborators in measuring and managing the performance of their
teams. This aids in identifying some of the current organisational needs in the
area of team performance.
All these activities together with the analysis of ``best practice'' organisations
lead to identifying the key factors that drive successful team performance. For
identifying organisations that claim to excel in the management of processes
and teams we contacted a UK based industrial network and we also looked at
last year's EFQM Business Excellence prize winners. As a result, six ``best
practice'' organisations were selected and analysed, and key success factors
were identified. This enabled the researchers to identify the core elements that
a framework for measuring and managing team performance should
incorporate. Finally, the initial design of the framework for managing and
measuring teams was carried out.
All these stages of the project were continuously reviewed by the project
steering committee, which was formed by a representative from each industrial
collaborator plus the four academic investigators. The steering committee met
on a quarterly basis to review the progress of the project.
Managing process teams
In order to ensure an efficient management of process based teams it is critical
to be aware of the key factors that affect the performance of the teams. The first
part of the project enabled the identification of several elements that should be
incorporated within a framework in order to enable the development of a
complete and integrated tool for managing process teams. The following are
the areas we identified as most important:
(1) Effective strategy deployment.
(2) Required team competencies (knowledge, skill and attitudes).
(3) Performance measurement system, measuring both team processes and
team outputs from two perspectives:
.individual level;
.team level.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
342
(4) Training and development.
(5) Reward and recognition.
The first conclusions also suggested that all these elements should be analysed
from an organisational perspective. It is important that both the team and the
organisation have a clear understanding of their responsibilities towards each
other. On one hand, the team needs to understand how to contribute to the
performance of the organisation and what are the implications of doing so. On
the other hand, the organisation should be aware of what the team needs and
provide the required resources to fulfil those needs. The team and the
organisation should support each other in order to generate a synergy that will
take the company to the desired destination. Therefore, a clear and effective
deployment and communication path should be defined between the team and
the rest of the organisation.
Based on the previous comments Figure 1 delineates the areas for managing
process team performance that we believe are paramount to high performance.
The framework that will be presented in the next section intends to integrate
these four key areas:
(1) Strategy deployment. This is related to the process followed to determine
company strategy and in particular, to transform that strategy into
business process objectives. The strategy development part is
responsible for defining what the business process needs to do (business
process objectives) in order to contribute towards the achievement of the
company's strategy. The researchers have analysed several available
methodologies ± e.g. the balance scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1996),
IPMS reference model (Bititci and Carrie, 1998) ± that support the
deployment of strategy.
(2) Business process management. Depending on the objectives deployed
from the strategy, the process should have a specific behaviour (e.g.
highly responsive, highly flexible, low cost, highly innovative) to help in
achieving those strategic objectives. At this stage an analysis of the
Figure 1.
Stages in managing
process teams
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
343
current process behaviour will be carried out and an action plan will be
defined to re-design the process and align it with the strategic
requirements. Finally a set of business process performance measures in
line with the process objectives will be defined in order to monitor,
maintain and improve process performance. Meyer (1998) stated that
``because a team is responsible for a value-delivery process that cuts
across several functions, it must create new measures to track this
process''. This group of measures will include indicators such as, ``per
cent on time delivery'' or ``manufacturing cost''.
(3) Team performance management. In order to achieve the process
objectives, the team of individuals supporting the process will require
certain competencies. The company will need to identify key team
competencies for supporting a particular business process. MacDuffie
(1995), stated that if innovative human resource practices are likely to
contribute to improved economic performance then three conditions
must be met. He summarised these as:
.when employees possess knowledge and skills that managers lack;
.when employees are motivated to apply their skills and knowledge
through discretionary effort; and
.when the firm's business or production strategy can only be
achieved when employees contribute such discretionary effort.
Table I shows a list of team competencies that a team might require.
Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1997) divided these requirements into three
categories; knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA).
Table I.
Team competencies
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Cue/strategy associations
Task-specific team-mate
characteristics
Shared task models
Knowledge of team mission,
objectives, norms
Task sequencing
Accurate task models
Accurate problem models
Team role interaction patterns
Understanding team work
skills
Knowledge of boundary
spanning role
Team-mate characteristics
Adaptability, flexibility,
dynamic reallocation of
function, compensatory
behaviour
Shared situational awareness
Mutual performance
monitoring and feedback
self-correction
Leadership/team
management, conflict
resolution, assertiveness
Co-ordination and task
integration
Communication
Decision making, problem
solving and metacognition
Team orientation
Conflictive efficacy
Shared vision
Team cohesion
Interpersonal relations
Mutual trust
Task-specific teamwork
attitudes
Collective orientation
Importance of teamwork
Source: Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1997)
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
344
It will also be important to identify the key processes contributing to the
achievement of the business process and team objectives. Several
researchers identified different internal processes as being critical to
achieve required team outcomes. McDermott (2000) classified team
processes into four generic groups:
.planning processes;
.production processes;
.social processes; and
.learning processes.
On the other hand, the Bellwether Learning Centre (2000) defined a
model for integrated product teams where the key processes were
specific for that type of team: innovation process, problem-solving
process, decision-making process and implementation process.
However, there are other processes, such as, training processes, that
will also have an impact on the performance of a team. It will be
necessary to consider every internal process affecting team performance
so that a complete and generic list of processes is developed. Therefore,
we feel that further research is required in order to better understand the
internal team processes contributing to achieving team objectives.
Finally, at this stage teaming measures will be defined in order to
monitor both the process for task accomplishment and the final
outcomes. These measures will encompass the individual and team level
perspectives. These will include measures such as ``per cent of fully
trained staff'' or ``employee satisfaction''.
(4) Organisational support. This relates to the environment that surrounds
both the process and the team. Both sets of objectives, those that the
process and the team have to achieve, should be considered by the
organisation in order to determine what it needs to provide to ensure the
achievement of the objectives. Elements such as technology, training,
leadership and rewards should be provided by the organisation to set
the right environment that will ensure that the team and the process
perform as expected. Authors such as Katzenbach and Smith (1992),
Recardo et al. (1996) and Zobal (1998), amongst many others,
emphasised the importance of management and organisational support
for teams to be successful.
The organisation should consider current performance against
desired performance, and define an action plan with the objective of
improving the performance of the environment surrounding the team. A
set of organisational support measures will be required in order to
monitor how well the organisation is supporting the process and the
team. These will include measures such as ``per cent of employees with
objectives aligned to strategy'' or ``planned vs actual delivery of
training''.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
345
The framework
The objective of this framework is to take organisations through a logical
thinking process that will simplify the design, measurement and management
of process teams while increasing performance in most areas of the business.
Figure 2 illustrates the general picture of the framework. The four key areas
mentioned in the previous section are the main building blocks of the
framework. In addition, there is a deployment path between each of the
elements called ``how process''. This path further assists in defining what the
process, the team and the environment supporting both (the process and the
team) need to do in order to contribute to the achievement of a company's goals.
It also enhances the definition of how they are going to achieve the goals
(requirements in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes, leadership, etc.) and how
they are going to monitor the performance of the process, the team and the
environment. The ``how process'' incorporates five considerations that the
organisations should take into account in order to align strategy, business
process objectives and team performance.
The five considerations are related to:
Figure 2.
Framework for
managing process teams
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
346
(1) Expectations of the strategy, the business process and the team.
(2) Requirements to fulfil by the process, team and organisation.
(3) As-is analysis of the process, the team and the organisational support.
(4) Improvement action plan to drive the process, the team and the
organisational support towards the expected situation.
(5) Performance measures to monitor the performance of each of the areas.
Case study
The following case study was carried out in IRIZAR S. Coop., a luxury coach
builder which is part of large co-operative corporation. This organisation was
analysed as part of a visit to several companies in the Basque Country (North of
Spain) that gained high levels of competitiveness through organising
themselves around business processes and teams (Little and Mendibil, 2001).
IRIZAR is one of the many organisations that went through a period of crisis
in the early 1990s. At this time the company was struggling to survive and they
required major changes to regain competitiveness. As in many other cases, the
first measure taken by the company was to appoint a new senior manager. The
new manager came out with a clear vision of how the organisation could
recover from the crisis and become successful. Since then IRIZAR has
exponentially increased its sales and expansion figures and this work has been
recognised by the European Foundation for Quality Management with the 2000
European Quality Prize.
Before the change started, IRIZAR was very similar to any other traditional
organisation; several management layers, function-based centralised
management and product before customer. The new senior manager put
together a team with the objective of turning around the business.
Demonstrating a high level of emotional intelligence, he and his team clearly
transmitted their vision to the rest of the staff so that they could gain 100 per
cent commitment from the employees. The route to success was not an easy
journey, but with vision, perseverance and commitment the company made its
way into the light.
There are four main elements that have made IRIZAR's management model
so successful:
(1) continuous process re-engineering;
(2) self-managed multidisciplinary teams;
(3) shared strategic thinking; and
(4) shared leadership.
IRIZAR is based on a participative management model, with shared leadership
as one of the main attributes. From beginning to end, IRIZAR is managed by
processes using a system of multidisciplinary self-managed teams and a
culture of people involvement. The model is based on the continuous
re-engineering of the organisation taking the customer as a central part of the
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
347
business processes. We could say that all activities that the teams are
responsible for are customer-focused and thus, the organisation focuses only on
those activities adding value to the customer.
The central part of the business processes is the ``customer lines'' which
encompass all activities from the order received until the coach is delivered to
the customer. Of the staff, both direct (shop-floor operator) and indirect
(engineering, design, buying, etc.), 90 per cent are grouped into teams that are
part of each customer line. Different functions within the teams are highly
integrated with each other as well as with their suppliers and customers.
Complementary to the customer line, the team concept extends throughout
the organisation. As a result, each individual has a wider responsibility for
improving activities such as customer service, people management, external
relations and impact on society and on the environment. From the start of the
project all employees are involved in activities related to innovation, decision-
taking and problem-solving, thus, responding to the needs of the organisation
to gain a competitive edge.
The change project team realised that in order to make the whole project
successful they had to embed a culture of teamwork, shared leadership and
strategic thinking. The company has moved from having nine members in its
executive team and ten improvement teams in 1994, to be operated and
managed by 101 multidisciplinary teams with a continuous leadership rotation
system. Considering that IRIZAR has 632 employees, this is a clear example of
a management model based on teams and shared leadership.
The company defines a three to five year plan, and then strategy is reviewed
yearly in order to refine or redefine any elements that require change. At the
start of each year, strategy is communicated to all employees, and senior
management reviews any concerns in order to ensure maximum agreement is
reached. This is a clear example of shared strategic vision.
One of the novel concepts encountered at IRIZAR was that everyone is
involved in a single company ``project'' that has common goals for everyone.
The ``project'', as they call it, is the corporate strategy and the set of goals
defined at the beginning of every year. This ensures that all employees work
towards the same goals and not towards departmental objectives that could
result in sub-optimal performance. These common goals are deployed each
year to the process orientated teams in a very systematic way. The objectives
are agreed using a ``catchball'' approach involving members from every team
and the progress towards those goals is monitored by a team specifically
constructed each year to ensure that the ``project'' is progressing towards the
goals of the organisation. The ``project'' team includes members from the
process-orientated teams and these members ensure that any changes to the
company's goals are communicated to each individual process team. Following
the shared leadership principle of IRIZAR, members of the ``project'' team are
also rotated every year so that the overall involvement of employees is
improved over time.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
348
In terms of performance measurement there are certain common goals
(related to flexibility, quality, cost competitiveness and innovation) which are
deployed to each of the teams. The company's strategy focuses on competitive
positioning by putting the customer first, understanding their needs and
adding value, while respecting all the people within the organisation. These
common objectives are then broken down into more specific tasks and
measures by the team themselves. These tasks and measures will be dependent
on the needs of the organisation at a particular time.
All this work has enabled IRIZAR to be internationally recognised as a best
practice organisation. The 2000 Business Excellence Award has been an
important milestone of IRIZAR's route to success.
Discussion
The case study has shown an example of how an organisation, using a
management model primarily based on business processes and process teams,
has become a market leader. However, behind this success story there was
much more than processes, teams, tools and theories that were applied in the
company. There was an array of people who had a clear vision of the direction
that the business would have to move and the way that this journey would
have to be done if the company was to be successful. Most importantly, they
managed to get all employees involved in the project by clearly showing them
that vision.
Prior to and during the change project these people went through a rigorous
thinking process where the mission of the organisation and the strategy to
follow were clearly defined and communicated. The process that IRIZAR
followed included a clear understanding of where the organisation was meant
to go (corporate objectives), how the company would go about reaching this
destination (business processes), who was responsible for taking the company
to the required destination (self-managed teams), what the company needed to
provide to make the whole change successful (efficient team management) and
how the company was performing at any given time (performance
measurement). By integrating and aligning strategy, processes, performance
measures, people and all other available resources they produced a synergy
that made a real difference to the performance of the organisation.
Nevertheless, the whole change project would not have been so successful
without efficient leadership. People with a high level of emotional intelligence
are able to bond with the rest of the employees who then buy into the project.
These leaders can empathise, collaborate, communicate, motivate and influence
others and that was one of the reasons why the company was working as one
team towards the achievement of common goals. In addition, the company's
approach to shared leadership enabled many employees to take the role of a
leader and to develop their ability to handle themselves and their relationships
to good effect.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

Managing
processes
349
Conclusions
We conclude this paper by stating that the use of a framework for
systematically managing business process and team performance could
considerably increase the probability of raising the competitiveness of an
organisation. However by solely taking the available methods and tools and
implementing them in a particular company, improvements may be effective
but will rarely be enough to remain competitive in the long term. It is suggested
that a more rigorous and thoughtful approach which aligns all areas and
resources of an enterprise is necessary.
IRIZAR used a very systematic process that was tailored to the specific
needs at the time of the change, which had been re-designed to meet the current
organisational needs. Many organisations could benefit from using such a
systematic approach and this is one of the objectives of this research. Although
still in early stages, the framework presented in this paper aims to facilitate
organisations to manage processes and teams in a way that maximises their
contribution towards the achievement of the company's corporate goals and
employees' aspirations.
References
Barekat, M.M. (2001), ``Virtual-e-teams making e-business-sense'', Manufacturing Engineer,Vol.80
No. 2, pp. 66-9.
Bellwether Learning Centre (2000), ``The fundamentals of integrated product teams'', available at:
http://osdipt.dynsys.com/
Bititci, U.S. and Carrie, A.S. (1998), ``Integrated performance measurement systems: structures
and relationships'', EPSCR Research Grant Final Report, EPSRC, Swindon.
Bruns, W.J. Jr (1992), Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Cacciope, R. (1999), ``Using team-individual reward recognition strategies to drive organizational
success'', Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 322-31.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (1997), ``A framework for developing team performance
measures in training'', in Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. and Prince, C. (Eds), Team Performance
Assessment and Measurement ± Theory, Methods, and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dickinson, T.L. and McIntyre, R.M. (1997), ``A conceptual framework for teamwork
measurement'', in Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., Prince, C. (Eds), Team Performance
Assessment and Measurement ± Theory, Methods, and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 19-43.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1999), ``How process enterprise really work'', Harvard Business
Review, November-December, pp. 108-18.
Hana, V., Burns, N.D. and Backhouse, C.J. (1996), ``How we are measured is how we behave'',
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Managing Integrated Manufacturing
(MIM'96), Leicester University, 26-28 June, pp. 303-8.
Ingram, H. (1996), ``Linking teamwork with performance'', Team Performance Management,Vol.2
No. 4, pp. 5-10.
Jones, S.D. and Schilling, D.J. (2000), Measuring Team Performance, Jossey-Bass/Wiley, San
Francisco, CA.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

BPMJ
8,4
350
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), Balanced Scorecard, 1st ed., Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1994), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance
Organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Little, D. and Mendibil, K. (2001), ``Lessons from the Basque country'', Manufacturing Engineer,
Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 27-32.
McDermott, E. (2000), ``Measuring team performance'', MEng in Product Design Engineering,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995), ``Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: flexible
production systems in the world auto industry'', Industrial Relations and Labour Review,
Vol. 48, pp. 197-221.
Meyer, C. (1998), ``Harvard Business Review on measuring corporate performance'', HBR
Paperback Series, ``How the Right Measures Help Teams Excel'', Harvard Business Review,
pp. 99-122.
Recardo, R.J., Wade, D., Mention, C.A. and Jolly, J.A. (1996), Teams: Who Needs Them and Why?,
Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Senior, B. (1997), ``Team performance: using repertory grid technique to gain a view from the
inside'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Teare, R., Ingram, H., Scheuing, E. and Armistead, C. (1997), ``Organizational teamworking
frameworks: evidence from UK and USA-based firms'', International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 250-63.
Zigon, J. (1997), ``Team performance measurement: a process for creating team performance
standards'', Compensation and Benefits Review, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 38-47.
Zigon, J. (1999), How to Measure Team Performance, Version 2.2, Zigon Performance Group, Media,
PA.
Zobal, C. (1998), ``The ideal team compensation ± an overview'', Team Performance Management,
Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 235-49.
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1. Rafael Bravo, Laura Lucia-Palacios, Maria J. Martin. 2016. Processes and outcomes in student teamwork.
An empirical study in a marketing subject. Studies in Higher Education 41:2, 302-320. [CrossRef]
2. Abdulrahman Alsughayir. 2016. Regulatory Role of TQM between the Marketing Orientation,
Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Organizational Performance and Competitiveness. American Journal
of Industrial and Business Management 06:05, 655-664. [CrossRef]
3. Stuart Tennant, David Langford, Michael Murray. 2011. Construction Site Management Team Working:
A Serendipitous Event. Journal of Management in Engineering 27:4, 220-228. [CrossRef]
4. Andrea Magalhaes Magdaleno, Renata Mendes de Araujo, Claudia Maria Lima WernerA roadmap to the
Collaboration Maturity Model (CollabMM) evolution 105-112. [CrossRef]
5. Andrea Magalhaes Magdaleno, Renata Mendes De Araujo, Marcos Roberto Da Silva Borges. 2009. A
maturity model to promote collaboration in business processes. International Journal of Business Process
Integration and Management 4:2, 111. [CrossRef]
6. Andréa Magalhãe Magdaleno, Claudia Cappelli, Fernanda Araujo Baião, Flávia Maria Santoro, Renata
Araujo. 2008. Towards Collaboration Maturity in Business Processes: An Exploratory Study in Oil
Production Processes. Information Systems Management 25:4, 302-318. [CrossRef]
7. Robert JohnstonWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Panupak
PongatichatThe Office of the Civil Service Commission, Royal Thai Government, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
2008. Managing the tension between performance measurement and strategy: coping strategies.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:10, 941-967. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
8. Panupak PongatichatThe Office of the Civil Service Commission, Royal Thai Government, Nonthaburi,
Thailand Robert JohnstonWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 2008.
Exploring strategy‐misaligned performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 57:3, 207-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Teams as a Forum for Asking Serious Questions 156-162. [CrossRef]
10. Natasa Vujica Herzog, Andrej Polajnar, Stefano Tonchia. 2007. Development and validation of business
process reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies. International Journal of
Production Research 45:24, 5811-5834. [CrossRef]
11. Prabir K. BagchiSchool of Business, The George Washington University Washington, District of
Columbia, USA Byoung Chun HaSchool of Business, The George Washington University Washington,
District of Columbia, USA Tage Skjoett‐LarsenCopenhagen Business School, Frederiks Berg, Denmark
Lars Boege SoerensenCopenhagen Business School, Frederiks Berg, Denmark. 2005. Supply chain
integration: a European survey. The International Journal of Logistics Management 16:2, 275-294.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Pavel CastkaThe University of Salford, Salford, UK Christopher J. BamberOLC (Europe) Ltd, Preston,
UK John M. SharpThe University of Salford, Salford, UK. 2004. Benchmarking intangible assets:
enhancing teamwork performance using self‐assessment. Benchmarking: An International Journal 11:6,
571-583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Pavel CastkaPavel Castka, holds a PhD in quality management and MSc in automation and robotics. He
is a researcher at the University of Salford and is a member of the Salford’s COrE research group. E‐mail:
pavel_castka@hotmail.comJohn M. SharpJohn Sharp directs the COrE research group at the University of
Salford and is professor in organizational excellence in the School of Management. John has gained a Beng
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)

and PhD in engineering. E‐mail: j.m.sharp@salford.ac.ukChristopher J. BamberChris Bamber holds a
mechanical engineering HND, an advanced certificate in management, MSc in Quality Management and a
PhD in agile manufacturing. Chris is currently managing director of a consultancy company OLC (Europe)
Ltd. E‐mail: cbamber@olceurope.com. 2003. Assessing teamwork development to improve organizational
performance. Measuring Business Excellence 7:4, 29-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Strathclyde At 06:44 22 February 2017 (PT)