"All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an
Effective way to get work done."
Response
Although the issue on authority and responsibility to execute a project or task is not black and white and some experts may favor to the statement that 'All groups and organizations functions should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibility and duties', I disagree above statement as project and task execution (within predefined time) must to have better controllerships and right delegation of work. This requires one central person to own the project.
The chief reason for my view is Project or task controllership. Being multiple people as a decision makes may defeat the purpose of controllership. For an example let's suppose Microsoft is running a project to launch new version of windows and leadership is quite focused what they exact want out of this release and don't want to deviate from planned activity. Here if we allow multiple people to make their own decisions during execution stage. They may decide to introduce some more new features and/or may cut down planned features; as a result end product might lead something else what leadership is thought of.
Another reason for my view is project cost may significant varies from planned if multiple decision makers are there. For an example Nissan planned to launch a new luxury car in India market and decided to spend $X in R&D, while the R&D project was in execution stage one group decided to add one more feature that further requires 2 more months R&D. That results an increase in planned R&D cost i.e. $Y=$ X + 2 months cost. Same can also go in reverse if one group decided to cut down one feature.
Moreover it would be very difficult to do the right delegation if central authority person is not there. For example a group may be asked to do a JOB on which members are not specialized. That would further impact the quality of work that team is committed to deliver. However central authority and responsibility model may have it's own issues like more bureaucratic system, linger on decision ,not getting full spectrum of ideas while making an important decision. I am sure all these can be addressed through proper planning like defined time line and process to reach a decision, before making any important decision brain storming is must.
Here some might argue that 'All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties' for better and timely execution of the project or task. Moreover it would ensure better coordination among group members. However this model may not deliver the final product as expected by leadership, within budget and agreed timeline and would have all above said issues.
In sum, I concur that central authority and responsibility for a project or task is a effective way to get work done. As it would have better controllership, timely and within budget execution, moreover final outcome would be same as expected. However this model may suffer from above said issues; those can further be eliminated by putting proper processes in place.
Effective way to get work done."
Response
Although the issue on authority and responsibility to execute a project or task is not black and white and some experts may favor to the statement that 'All groups and organizations functions should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibility and duties', I disagree above statement as project and task execution (within predefined time) must to have better controllerships and right delegation of work. This requires one central person to own the project.
The chief reason for my view is Project or task controllership. Being multiple people as a decision makes may defeat the purpose of controllership. For an example let's suppose Microsoft is running a project to launch new version of windows and leadership is quite focused what they exact want out of this release and don't want to deviate from planned activity. Here if we allow multiple people to make their own decisions during execution stage. They may decide to introduce some more new features and/or may cut down planned features; as a result end product might lead something else what leadership is thought of.
Another reason for my view is project cost may significant varies from planned if multiple decision makers are there. For an example Nissan planned to launch a new luxury car in India market and decided to spend $X in R&D, while the R&D project was in execution stage one group decided to add one more feature that further requires 2 more months R&D. That results an increase in planned R&D cost i.e. $Y=$ X + 2 months cost. Same can also go in reverse if one group decided to cut down one feature.
Moreover it would be very difficult to do the right delegation if central authority person is not there. For example a group may be asked to do a JOB on which members are not specialized. That would further impact the quality of work that team is committed to deliver. However central authority and responsibility model may have it's own issues like more bureaucratic system, linger on decision ,not getting full spectrum of ideas while making an important decision. I am sure all these can be addressed through proper planning like defined time line and process to reach a decision, before making any important decision brain storming is must.
Here some might argue that 'All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties' for better and timely execution of the project or task. Moreover it would ensure better coordination among group members. However this model may not deliver the final product as expected by leadership, within budget and agreed timeline and would have all above said issues.
In sum, I concur that central authority and responsibility for a project or task is a effective way to get work done. As it would have better controllership, timely and within budget execution, moreover final outcome would be same as expected. However this model may suffer from above said issues; those can further be eliminated by putting proper processes in place.
