Getting the right people for the workgroup is key to the success of the project. As such, various factors need to be considered in selecting organizational workgroups. These factors include; required and desired perspectives, ability to develop work plans, required skills, required participants, and expertise in the documentation of workgroup progress and products. How some of these factors influence the choice of a workgroup is discussed below. Planning is a progressive process with different stages from planning and preparations, through implementation to operations and completion ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Documentation is required for a smooth linkage between the various stages of the project ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). As the project tasks become advanced, continued textual documentation is needed to help the group members build on progress or complete work. Besides, financiers usually set detailed documentation that the project workgroups must adhere to from the project's beginning. Therefore, at some point, the workgroup members must document the team's products and progress. When selecting organizational workgroups, it is advisable to ensure at least some, if not all, of the members, can write in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. Workgroups are created to achieve a specified objective. Since the members work on own initiative and as a group towards the common goal, there is a need to create a shared understanding among the members ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). They need to be at par about what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, where it needs to be done, who needs to do it, and when it needs to be done. It is through work plans that the shared understanding is attained. Therefore, it is essential when selecting a workgroup to ensure that they have the necessary skills in developing work plans. The reason for the formation of a workgroup is that there is a task to be carried out. It is, therefore, essential to outline beforehand the required skills for the success of the project. There needs to be a leader and a team working closely together toward each project's set goals. Leadership skills such as trustworthiness must be present in the person chosen to head the team. ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004) recommend that at least one member of a team should have technical know-how and skills. A team should also comprise members who are conversant with the target community, its problems, and its needs. Some members should be skilled in organizing activities within a stepwise framework ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). A working group should be composed of people with different essential skills, depending on the task for which it is being created. Not everyone may be free to join a workgroup owing to several reasons. Legal requirements may disqualify people from participating in workgroups ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Similarly, financiers or licensing agencies may set conditions that limit participation to people with specific characteristics ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). In such cases, these requirements must be met before one can participate in a given workgroup. Besides such conditions, it would be necessary for the concerned officials to ensure they set standards in line with the project's goal, detailing what it takes to participate. These standards should then guide them in knowing who has what it takes to become a member. Whether working on own initiative or as a team, depending on the type and stage of the task, all members will be required at all times to actively engage in the group processes and work ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). In composing the groups, consideration should be given to the members' availability and ability to work independently and as a team. It will help in ensuring that the project processes or activity do not stall or delay unnecessarily either because a member tasked to accomplish a duty is a no-show, or they cannot do it without the help of others, which may be engaged at the time in different group processes or work. This way, smooth operations will be guaranteed, and the project's success will not be at stake. All the factors listed above are relevant considerations to make when composing a workgroup. Each element is essential on its merit—however, active participation in the group processes and activities is the most important factor to consider. Someone may meet all legal requirements and have all the requisite skills, but if they are not going to be available to take up the task when needed, their membership will only impede the group's operations and the progress of the project. Besides, skills can be imparted. If one has met the legal requirements and is readily available if they lack the required skills, someone can coach and guide them. Social relations have far-reaching effects on the group's execution of its mandate and the success or failure of the project. Three main categories of social relations fall under project planning and are likely to influence planning in different aspects ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). They include workgroup relations, intra-organizational relations, and inter-organizational relations ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). The aspects of social ties influence project planning in either a supportive or challenging manner. Supportive aspects are those that influence planning positively while challenging ones impede proper planning processes. Organization’s effectiveness: The workgroup's ability to deliver the desired and required results on time will boost inter-organizational relations. Delivering timely accomplishments wins the other players' trust in the organization and earns the workgroup more support ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Financiers and other stakeholders get assurance and will be willing to commit more time, effort, and resources toward the project. Effective communication: Organized communication among the different project units will enhance cooperation and understanding among members. This will boost the project performance and planning process. Enthusiastic leadership: The officials' enthusiasm for a project's progress inspires motivation among group members ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). When members are motivated, they give their all to the project productivity increases. It also raises the level of cooperation as well as assistance from others within the organization.
Challenging Aspects
Ineffectual leadership: If the leadership in place is ineffective, it spells doom for the planning process. Such leadership may lack credibility with stakeholders and lead to wrangles that derail the planning process ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Poor leadership may result in an environment that is not collaborative ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004), which will significantly hamper the group's delivering capability as some tasks will require teamwork enabling environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Poor coordination: This another aspect of relations that challenges the planning process. It is partly but not wholly related to poor leadership. Members' cooperation is equally needed to effectively coordinate group activities and operations ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Lack of proper coordination can complicate processes and delay the completion of tasks or essential decision-making.
Continuing dissension among participants: Discord among members is not suitable for the planning process ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). They reduce cohesion among group members and kill the team spirit. Such disagreements may escalate and become a distraction. When time and effort that should be channeled toward achieving the group objective are diverted to conflict resolution, it beats the purpose of the members' coexistence and puts the project goals at risk.
Unprofessionalism: When part of the team is continually falling below the required standard in delivering its mandate, the planning process suffers a blow ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). For instance, if the support staff is always behind schedule in retrieving the requisite information or records, it strained the relationships among the different departments within the team and delays task accomplishments. If the data intended to guide project delivery is delayed, it means the delivery has been delayed.
Lack of inclusivity: To promote cohesion and teamwork, all units should be engaged accordingly ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). A feeling of exclusion by a unit or a member may result in sabotage and slow down or completely derail the planning process.
Unhealthy inter-organizational relations: Interorganizational relations refer to the relationship of the workgroup with external entities or partners such as financiers, regulatory agencies, the media, and the large community ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Even though it is crucial for the partners to always work closely with the group, the closeness level should be defined. Some closeness may be considered intrusion and becomes detrimental to the work group's operations ( Pawlak & Vinter, 2004). Negative influence and opposition from the media may have far-reaching effects that could result in financiers' withdrawal and eventual termination of the project.
References
Pawlak, E. J., & Vinter, R. D. (2004). Designing and planning programs for nonprofit and government organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
