I prefer working in smaller groups. I find smaller groups easier for communication, since it is easier to get a hold of a handful of people and match schedules as opposed to more people whose time availabilities conflict. It is also easier and faster to make decisions when there are fewer people because it is easier to get to a consensus and avoid miscommunication. Though larger groups are essential for bigger projects where more expertise and experience is needed. A more diverse group that has teams specializing in each department can improve the quality of the final product overall. In this case, communication within the smaller teams would be done first, and then information from those sub-teams would be given to someone who would deliver it to the bigger team. I’ve had a team management class where we had to complete a final group project, and there was a total of five of us, while some groups had seven or eight people. I found that our group had the best communication amongst each other, but we had to take on more responsibility for different roles since there were fewer of us. Even if someone wasn’t able to make a meeting, the other people filled them in. Overall, it depends on the project and the level of expertise needed, though I would rather have a smaller group and take on more roles than have a bigger group with miscommunication and confusion. I also believe it is easier to work with people who are knowledgeable from different backgrounds because although it might be a little harder to come to a agreement, in the end it will be the best decision for the team. 

When it comes to group based projects, I prefer working in smaller teams of people because of how much more focused the project vison will be with a reasonably sized team. Working in larger groups have the advantage of having more hands on deck and more varied opinions on how to go about the main project topic. Though smaller sized groups come with the benefit of being overall much more manageable that it over encompasses all other aspects of the project which makes it's benefits outweigh the benefits of the other option. Smaller sized groups allows for my moments of communication between the entire or individual group members which offers more insight with diverting the project vision. It also leads into the fact that offers more face to face conversations because of more reasonably managed scheduling of the group members. Working on projects with people of different backgrounds can be beneficial because of how it allows for different approaches to be considered, which offers more discuss between the members on focusing on what really matters for the project. I find it easier for group based assignments to be done when the members have a more diversified skill set because that it when true collaboration is introduced and the project can reach new heights. Though this begins to be a problem when the number of group members is too high, which causes people to not see eye to eye because of how muddled the idea for the product is in everyone's head. 

Personally, I find that when it comes to making final decisions, differing backgrounds does not have as much impact when there is minimal overlap in roles or responsibilities regarding the project. Of course, as teams get larger overlapping responsibilities becomes much more common, and it is here where differing opinions can cause friction especially when it comes to making final decisions. However, despite this while it may feel easier to come to a final decision when there are less people or even just yourself making a decision, it is absolutely more thorough to have more diverse set of backgrounds working on a decision to cover other team members blind spots. Ultimately, while it is more difficult, working with people with different backgrounds on the same problem, or project provides more quality decisions and quality work.  

The sizes of project teams I believe has a major dependency on the scope of the project, including what the final output of the project is expected to be. On a personal level, I have a preference towards smaller project teams due to the the inclination for more teamwork and interaction between smaller teams. As such, cohesion within smaller teams is much more effective as compared to projects that have a large number of members who contribute smaller objectives to a greater whole. For smaller teams, this also leads to more outspoken opinions where the brainstorming of ideas is more methodical and critical-thinking when shared within a smaller group.

When working on a project, and especially when leading a project, I prefer to have a smaller team. Smaller project teams make communication more effective and allow the project manager to more easily monitor progress and ensure that everyone stays aligned with project goals. With fewer team members, it is also easier to directly address issues with the project or conflicts between team members quickly. While I understand the advantages of having team members from different backgrounds, my personal experience with this has been challenging. For my senior project in undergrad, my team consisted of three biomedical engineering students and one mechanical engineering student, and we were tasked with developing a novel medical device. At first, we struggled with the diverse team setup since the mechanical engineering student lacked familiarity with regulatory requirements and the physiological aspects of the project. This led to a lot of time being spent on bringing him up to speed, which slowed our overall progress. We ultimately made the team dynamic work by assigning him tasks that aligned more closely with his skillset, allowing him to focus on the less biomedical parts of the project while the rest of the team handled the clinical aspects.

When it comes to working in group, I found myself liking the working in a smaller group. The reason for this as you can build more of a connection with the people within your group and not have to worry about not being able to get stuff done if there is a problem. By having a smaller group there is a little bit more work on each person but it also allows for there to be a sense of accomplishment of getting your work done and have to wait on less people if you are waiting for the next person to get done with their part to allow you to work on your part. Having a bigger group means that the work get split into more medial task and feels like there is only a small part that gets done and not as much satisfaction. By having a smaller group there is more of a direct line of communication, more sense of accomplishment, not wait on as many peoples work, and grow closer with the people within your group and not leaving anyone out. 

I have  worked in both small and large teams, and found that team size really changes how decisions get made. Personally, I prefer smaller teams (3-6 people) for most projects. Communication is faster, roles are clearer, and it is easier to stay aligned on goals without meetings turning into coordination exercises.
However, larger teams shine when the project is complex and truly benefits from diverse expertise (for example, when engineering, regulatory, and business perspectives are all needed). The challenge I have noticed with larger teams is not the diversity itself, but decision making where it can slow down when there is no clear structure for resolving disagreements. When people have different backgrounds, I actually think decisions improve if expectations are set early. That is the key

I prefer to have a small team as the project feels a lot more personable to me. With a large team, while I am a lot more focused on a certain area, my heart is not in the project as much as it is within a smaller team. With a small team, I feel irreplaceable, and I can easily contact a teammate for assistance for my project as well. I myself also find it easier to work with people who have the same background when it comes to final decisions being made, but that itself can be a problem. While it is easier to work with someone who has a similar background as me, I prefer working with people with different backgrounds as they question my work, and I have to justify my own findings and my work which ultimately leads to me finding mistakes of my own then modifying work to fit the end goal.

For most projects, I prefer a smaller sized team (to me that would be around 4 to 6 people). Communication at this size is faster, the roles are clear and concise, and it is an easier task keeping everyone aligned without having the scheduling being a major issue. This allows for small unit leaders to thrive and could contribute to a larger project at hand more efficiently. In regards to a larger or more complex project, a core team plus an extended team model could be useful where small groups make day to day decisions, but then it is brought to additional experts (such as regulatory, manufacturing, clinical and marketing) at predefined points in the project's timeline. When one works with people from different backgrounds, that could help make decisions improve over a course of time, as long as the group can agree early on HOW a decision will be made and what criteria should matter the most.

I prefer working in a large team because it gives the project more ideas and skills. When people come from different backgrounds, everyone can share a different point of view. This helps the team think more deeply about the problem and find better solutions. Sometimes it is harder to agree on final decisions because everyone has a different opinion. However, I think this challenge is useful because it pushes the team to discuss and explain ideas clearly. Working with people who have different experiences also helps me learn new ways of thinking. Communication is very important in large teams to avoid confusion.

I have had some experience working with teams for a project. In my personal opinion, I believe that smaller teams tend to work better to accomplish projects effectively. Obviously, there is a time and place for larger teams based on the complexity of a project, but if a team is too large I feel like the drawbacks are significant. Smaller teams allow for better communication on key topics, allowing for everyone to have their input heard and an overall decision can be formulated easily. Differing viewpoints help to identify all potential risks, which improves design decisions rather than hindering progress. On larger teams, it is very common for many individuals to not have their input as the decisions may be controlled by a select few individuals. 

I believe that if teams have different backgrounds it allows for agreeing on final decisions to be easier. Obviously, many people may believe this is not the case because everyone will have a different viewpoint on topics. However, I believe that it aids in the projects overall success because all of the viewpoints can be taken into account. If teams are formulated with all the same backgrounds, certain stages of the project may lack and the overall success of the project would be hindered. The best teams are composed of individuals that have technical expertise in specific aspects of the project. Allowing each member to contribute to their respective area and the project to move efficiently. 

If all individuals on a team have the same background, how can a project be completed to the best degree if they are lacking in a specific area?

I think both small and large teams have their pros and cons. Personally, I prefer working in a small team because it’s easier to communicate, stay organized, and make decisions without too much back-and-forth. I also find that working with people from different backgrounds can be a bit challenging at times since everyone has different perspectives, but I think it’s ultimately helpful. Even if agreeing on final decisions can take longer, those different viewpoints usually lead to a better, more well-thought-out product.

I think overall in any project or mission, it is important to have a balance of the group size and the AMOUNT of groups as well. With that said, I like working in smaller groups due to the communication being faster and easier to interpret. Utilizing a small unit leader concept (where someone is managing the small group) is great because they can refer to higher up personnel in management to relay what is happening without having a lot of people discussing it. Roles are clearly defined and accountability is a lot more manageable, which is crucial due to the safety, design and regulatory requirements that come with it. Smaller teams are able to make decisions more efficiently and avoid delays that could come from much larger groups.

Now, when there are more complex projects, larger networks of specialists and personnel would be beneficial or at least it could breakdown to multiple small groups (but that could also be a mess for the project manager to oversight). With a larger network of specialists, it could make it easier for smaller groups to approach should they come to a specific issue. With that said, there is a benefit to bigger groups in that there is a lot more of a varied background and variety of experiences, but I still prefer the smaller sized groups.

I tend to prefer working in smaller teams of 5-10 if I am managing them. I feel as though this range perfectly allows you to keep up with the updates of each team member and still be involved and available in their project. As there are more people, it is much more difficult to keep up with their updates and various deadlines. Once you get to the 20-30 range, you may need some lower level managers to look over different project aspects, and have them report to you instead. I feel that teams with a lot of different backgrounds are more likely to butt heads, however they tend to come to better final products. As long as all the members can respectfully listen to each other's experience, they tend to more easily trust each other and their work.