When it comes to team size I prefer smaller teams. Sometimes less is more and a team that is no bigger than four can often yield to more intimate teamwork. Tasks assigned to each person is more easy to delegate and is more well defined. There is more accountability toward each member on a smaller team and when it comes to making final decisions it is easier for everyone to be on board. Team size in my opinion should be calibrated according to project size, larger the project larger the team.
I have worked in a team where each member had differing backgrounds that fit the needs of the project. This was mainly during undergrad capstone, I was working with three others all with different skill sets, aptitude, and knowledge. It was a great experience since each member got to show what they were good at, as well as converging that dynamic to accomplish each objective. Not only was I able to use each member and contribute myself, but it was also a learning experience since I was able to expose myself to different disciplines. I found that however, that for a smaller team with differing discipline to work, each member has to be flexible and willing to learn an aspect of each team members field. Otherwise things can become confusing which can compromise.
When working on a project, I would prefer to work with a smaller group. While having more people on a team can introduce various areas of knowledge that a smaller one might not have, the attention to detail that can be focused on things that one might not know could be improved. With a bigger team, the potentiality for errors and problems to be overlooked can occur. The possibility for inconsistency and disagreements can be limited or circumvented smoothly within a smaller group.
A smaller team environment is what I would desire. I frequently discover that work can be distributed unfairly in larger teams, causing some people to work longer or shorter in their assigned areas. Additionally, workflow is improved and the likelihood of a misinterpretation decreases when information moves through fewer hands. A project's schedule may be delayed if too many people work on it. A team with diverse specialties is also desired because, in my experience, decisions are reached more quickly. When you require an original thought to get beyond a challenge, you can find that similar answers are frequently found if everyone has a similar background or is really like-minded.
Small and large project teams are both advantageous in their own ways. However, if I had to choose between the two, I would prefer working in a small group. To begin with, small project teams allow for more communication, and therefore, more engagement between team members, collaboration, and productivity. To explain, team members rely more closely on one another to get the project done in smaller teams, resulting in stronger bonds between departments. These stronger bonds not only enhance the team’s productivity, but also improves communication and collaboration within the group, especially when inputs or approvals are needed. One may argue that larger groups have more resources to get the job done faster, which is definitely true. However, larger groups mean more delays in approval processes due to so many varying opinions, longer meetings, and more disagreements between team members, which all slow down the progression of the project. I’ve only ever worked in small project teams, but never in industry. I’m interested in reading if anyone has ever had a bad experience working in small groups in a company?
To answer your second question, I think it’s important to have members with different backgrounds in the same project team. It may be difficult to have discussions with people from different backgrounds initially, but this is necessary to understand different perspectives and methods for completing projects.
Small and large teams in projects both have many advantages and disadvantages, and can both be successful depending on the project. In small teams, the members are able to develop closer relationships with one another which benefits the overall morale due to an increase in communication. Additionally, it is easier to track the status of a project since fewer members make it clear who is working on a particular aspect of the project. Fewer members also allow for decisions to be made more quickly. A drawback, however, is that the team may have more specialized skills that are suited for a specific project. With large teams, the team will have a larger range of skills and can work on multiple projects or tasks at the same time. Additionally, larger teams are usually allocated a bigger budget, indicating that they will have more resources. Since the team is so large, however, communication may be more difficult since it may be harder to track down people across other departments that are involved in the project. In terms of what type of group I would prefer to be a part of, it would be a small team due to the ability to be able to develop relationships with other team members as well as provide more learning opportunities. It may be a bit difficult to work with others from other backgrounds at first, but it would be more beneficial in the long term as it would allow for the best decisions to be made for the product. An example would be a decision being made about a medical device that is being produced. Having voices from finance, quality, manufacturing, and research and development would ensure that different perspectives are considered to produce the best product.
Hello,
Both large and small teams have their own unique advantages and disadvantages. In a large team, there is a division of labor and specialization of skills, which can increase efficiency and result in a higher quality output. A larger pool of ideas and perspectives can also lead to more creative and innovative solutions. In addition, a large team provides a stronger support network for tackling complex problems. On the other hand, a small team provides more flexibility and the ability to make decisions quickly. Team members in a small team typically have closer working relationships and better communication, leading to a clearer understanding of each member's role and responsibilities. This can result in greater accountability and a stronger sense of ownership. The preference for working in a large or small team will ultimately depend on the specific project, the individuals involved, and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Personally, unless the project is massive, I would prefer to work in a smaller team so that the connection between the coworkers is greater and it is simpler to make decisions.
Working in different sized teams has advantages and drawbacks to each. When working on a project do you prefer to have a small or large team? Within teams, people can have different backgrounds and areas of expertise as well. Do you find it easier or harder to work with people that have a different background when it comes to agreeing on final decisions being made about a product?
When it comes to choosing the size of the team, I think it depends on the size of the project. Larger teams will obviously be more advantageous when it comes to bigger projects; but they can become a burden on smaller projects. It's important to strike a balance between having enough people to complete the project efficiently and not having too many people that it becomes difficult to manage. Additionally, the skills and expertise of the team members should also be considered when determining the size of the team. As stated in some earlier posts, in general, I think smaller teams are easier to manage; however, brainstorming in larger groups can provide an all encompassing list of ideas, which can help to avoid bias in the team's plan. It is also a lot easier to get opinions from others. Working with individuals with different backgrounds is extremely important, not only because it provides differing points of view but also because it greatly benefits the group in situations where one or more of the group members are unsure of how to solve a particular issue. For example, say you or one of your group members is having trouble developing a feasible fabrication process for a fictional biomaterial. Luckily for the group, you have experience in this area because of an internship you did at a biomaterials manufacturing firm. Final decisions are often difficult to make, especially when everyone is not on the same page. However, even in larger groups, I believe it is possible to come to a comprehensive final decision as long as you are able to effectively navigate the situation. For instance, in large groups, a democratic approach can be employed; the most popular 2 or 3 ideas are chosen, and a vote is conducted to determine the final decision.
I found it very interesting reading the different opinions and experiences of others that have been part of project management teams. From my personal experience at a medical device company and being parts of projects that had large teams, smaller teams, and also a large team broken into smaller teams (R&D, design quality, project leads, etc.), I believe that the best team is a large team broken into smaller teams. When I was part of a project with too many people on the team, it seemed to me that a lot of time was getting wasted, especially because every member was attending daily meetings (including meetings with external suppliers) where their input or presence was not needed. It may be hard to realize, but the time from these daily meetings quickly adds up and takes away from time that can be used for productive efforts (i.e the R&D team doing testing and analyzing results rather than listening to the project leads argue with the supplier).
Once the larger team was broken into smaller groups (for example one R&D rep acting as a lead and attending the daily meetings then having a weekly meeting with the whole R&D group to update them), I noticed that the productivity increased significantly. Each team had a leader and was assigned tasks with updates provided as needed. This led to the project running much smoother and a lot more work getting done at a much better pace, not to mention all the team members using their time more efficiently.
I think that some people prefer working in smaller teams (which is good if there are multiple smaller teams as part of a larger project team), while some enjoy being a part of larger teams. Both have pros and cons but as long as the main project objectives/requirements are defined properly and the team stays within scope, the size of the team plays a small role in my opinion. I would love to hear more thoughts from others on this take!
Although working in large teams can allow for great collaboration with different minds and backgrounds I believe it can cause a lot of difficulties as well. I prefer small teams because the team members can be much more intimate with each other and get to know each other on a deeper level. I do believe this opinion varies depending on the person though. For me, I am uncomfortable sharing my thoughts and opinions to big groups and am more likely to break out of my shell with a group of 5-10 people rather than 50-100. Being part of a sports team in college, I really think what makes a team succeed is when they are able to connect on a deeper level. This is much easier to do with a smaller team than a larger team. I think the one con of having a small team is that there is a lot of responsibility for each individual in the group. With a large team the duties can be broken up between the team which allows for much more to be done at once and is not reliant on only a couple people to help the whole team succeed. One final note is that smaller teams will cost less than larger teams. If the same amount of work can be done with a smaller team than there is no reason to pay extra employees to do the same work. Overall, I think a smaller team is better for the overall success of the group or company.
The size of a project team is directly proportional to the project work it is allocated. The amount work for a single project cannot be quantified but can be segregated into various expertise that are bought to the table by various members of the team. It can however be broken into multiple areas that would relate to various important aspects of the project. Getting back to the size of teams, It is better to work in large size teams as various members of differing expertise can provide ideas that would open up new avenues of thought process. This would allow to view the project from various angles and create a well thought PDCA cycle that can be followed throughout the project. In smaller teams, PDCA cycle is usually referred back at each step and possibly improvised as well which can shift the goal of the project potentially. I believe larger project teams allow quality of the project over quantity provided by each member of a smaller team project.
From a business standpoint, having a smaller and more experienced team is better than having a larger team where there is not enough work to go out to everyone. At least where I have worked, there were would be one PM and one other engineer assigned to any project and this has worked out for them since it is a streamlined operation where all responsibilities and deliverables are taken on by the PM and assigned to the engineer. This creates an efficiency since there is better communication and coordination of the work because of the clear responsibilities of each person. However, the major drawback is the fact that the PM faces a heavy workload causing them to be overwhelmed but these projects allow them to develop new leadership, management, and even technical skills allowing them to become better employees overall.
When working on a project, I prefer to work with a smaller team. Throughout my academic career I have grown to realize that I work much better in an environment that I feel comfortable in and people I have made personal connections with. While a larger team brings plenty of diverse backgrounds and ideas to the project, they may lose the personal connections and relationships made during the project because of the amount of members in the group. These valuable connections can certainly prove to be beneficial for the future of the project and members individual careers. With personal relationships, the workplace will develop a positive atmosphere in which feedback and constructive criticism are encouraged. Not only will this help each member progress in self-development, but skill enhancement as well. Another advantage to working with a small team, and reason for preferring to work in a small team would be the flexibility within the team. A small team will be more likely to adapt to its members needs and expectations because they want to boost employee retention. Finally, while I would prefer a smaller team when it comes to working on a team project, I do not believe that differing backgrounds and ideologies affect the amount of time it takes to agree on final decision made about the product. Fewer opinions may lead to a more productive discussion because there is less room for confusion and miscommunication, it is still more advantageous to truly explore all of the options of a final product.
I think the size of a given project team is highly dependent on the scale of the project being worked on. However, in terms of medical devices and biomedical engineering products, I do believe that there should be at least one employee from the following specialties in every team: Project Management, Pre-Clinical, Clinical, Marketing, and Quality. Within these specialties, there can be numerous employees depending on the size of the project at hand. If a given specialty has numerous employees, this sub-specialty can operate as a smaller project team and the work performed by all the specialties can be managed by the project managers to ensure successful completion.
The size of a project team really depends upon the goal at hand. I agree with many others in the comments that a smaller groups is more manageable, accountable, and productive than a large group where individuals are more susceptible to social loafing. However, some projects, like construction, that require huge amounts of human power require larger project groups to accomplish a goal.
In reference to the difficulties of making decisions with persons of varied professional expertise, I think it can definitely make things difficult when making a final decision or completing a project. For example, I worked for a start-up company that was trying to patent a technology using microvesicles and one of the most difficult things was communicating the scientific concepts to the lawyer so they could draft up an accurate document. This was definitely an underestimated component of the process that required the assistance of an additional consultant with knowledge in both a law and medicine and posed challenges when planning future steps.
I think it is an important skill to be able to work in both small or large teams. While we all may have a preference, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. With more people, some tasks can be completed more quickly; whereas, with less people certain tasks can be completed more efficiently. Ultimately, the attention and time dedicated by each member to the shared goal is what counts and professionals should be able to adapt to different environments and maintain productivity.
Personally, I think that the team makeup should be dependent on the project type and objective. In terms of a multi-perspective project like the development or invention of a new product, working with teams that are filled with individuals with different backgrounds and knowledge bases is more critical because it allows different aspects of the product to get some knowledgeable attention and consideration when in the design phase. Meanwhile, in terms of a very straightforward project like a QA/QC or anything of the sort, it would be more beneficial to have a team composed of similar minded individuals simply because there is no type of variation needed to accomplish the result.
However, generally speaking, I would say that many would prefer a multi-disciplined team with different background because it allows different perspectives and ways of thinkings to pitch new ideas and suggestions to both ask constructive questions and increase the variability of improvements of the product.
