Each mini-team, if
not immediately consolidating their results with the entire team, may find that
the first project manager does something in agreement with a practice, the second
one does not, and the third manager was not even asked a question relating to that
practice. During the late-night, last-night onsite roll up of results to produce final
findings, the teams may be surprised to learn that they have inconsistent findings
on a number of practices. So, while the concept of mini-teams sounds like it will
promote time savings by allowing more people to be interviewed in a shorter timeframe,
the mini-teams must be managed closely by the Lead Appraiser. Which puts
yet another burden on the Lead Appraiser.
Some of the older assessment and evaluation methods had more specific guidance
in some areas, for example, the number of focus projects and the appraisal
team size. This guidance is not as clear in the ARC and SCAMPI. This leads the
user of these new methods to make more decisions. And while one of the stated
purposes of the ARC and the SCAMPI is to ensure more consistent results in
appraisals, this lack of guidance may in fact result in less consistent results.
Pages:
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604