PGDIE: The Road Ahead
Hi all friends.
Here I present a plan to revamp the future team structures of PGDIE (starting from batch 39), kindly read it carefully and give your comments/ suggestions for further improvement on the same.
Current Team Structure
* All teams and functions not shown due to space constraints.
Proposed Team Structure
| Team | Sub teams | Prime Responsibilities |
| Media Team (8) | | To create visibility and brand awareness about NITIE in general and PGDIE in particular through various mediums available |
| Corporate relationship Team | Alum Team (8) | To increase the involvement of alums in various activities and hence foster a long lasting relationship with them. Students will be assigned responsibilities of alum batch wise eg: IE1-10 will be the responsibility of Mr. X. |
| Placement Team (10) | To develop symbiotic relationship with corporate and channelize the relationship developed with them so as to achieve “the placement” for all | |
| Student Management Team (8) (Equivalent to Kaizen) | | To improve awareness of PGDIE batch so as to make sure that best talent is identified and selected. |
| Infrastructure Team (8) (equivalent to Event Management Team) | | To provide hospitality and infrastructural support to all activities of IE. |
| Sysco (8) | | To provide IT infrastructural support to all activities |
| Sponsorship Team (10) | | To gather financial support for all student activities |
| Academic Interaction Team (5) | | To facilitate interaction between administration and students To bridge the gap between consulting, MDP and UBP programs offered by NITIE and its eminent faculty to ensure maximum benefit from these activities |
* Figure in braces indicate the number of students in each team
If I have missed out any other critical function kindly suggest its addition
Other Salient Points:
- Teams requiring core competency like Sysco will have stringent criterion like tests for admitting students
- Performance of each individual will be mapped. The coordinators of each event will be decided by batch consensus and his performance.
- Teams will be flat with no coordinators.
- Each event can evoke any individual from the concerned team for his requirements.
- Last but not the least “the event teams will be abolished”.
Further Details will be provided in subsequent posts depending upon the response to this post.
6 comments:
Good thought and initiative Kuldeep and nice way of presentation.
I have certain points which i would like to discuss more in terms of team structure. These are in general observation of our batch, other places and some believes:
> First thing comes in my mind is, if teams are not divided upon the event names, then which team has which part in which event?
> How shall we find a right person for the right team. I mean, from the experience what I have got till now, I found some people who are not fit for the teams are there just for the sake of putting them in the team (or just to have better/worse balance in the team). So what shall we do for the same problem for the next batch? Continuing same thing will ensure that all or rather many will get in to the team and will learn being in there, else take less people and then let other people find the suitability and choose their team and flourish with the risk of some team may get less importance and will not able to perform. Teams like SysCo, Media, Event Management, Placements etc requires some kind of competence for their members. So how shall we ensure that?
> Process of selecting people were not transparent. So we can have this time by enabling good process.
> Flat teams are good, when all are having same energy level or kind of attachment. If not it may happen that in leader less team only some people will work and rest as there is no controlling body may not do their work.
> Multiple team roles are not yet implemented. I mean some people who can do multiple jobs, may be fit for more than one team so how and what to do in that case.
> The election/selection of coordinators will have to be streamlined so everybody is satisfied
> We also lack forums here. like forums of Finance, SCM, IT, Music, etc... Can we have something?
> We are in most of the cases fighting with peer batch. But in most of the cases we find working together is helping both. So anything who can do coordination work?
> Questions may arise when a event comes in, that attachment with the event may not be there and members may not perform well as they are doing now with attachment.
I am putting these points so start some discussion so that we can get our mind and the things clear. Let us not be specific about a team, but think more about a process.
First of all, let me compliment Kuldeep, for putting in efforts for the revamp of PGDIE as a whole.
Regarding the proposed plans, & recommendations, i have my own apprehensions & opinions.
I would just to like put up only one question:
Q. PGDIE39 comes in June, they have to take control uptil January 2010. To build a cohesive organisation as proposed, we need time & years of experience. Will it be possible for us to preach our juniors, a completely revamped blueprint of PGDIE???
Here's where i suggest we can implement this revamped plan over a few years, ie. 2 or 3 batches. with subsequent improvements.
You all may be feel i am being skeptical, but think over the question & scale of revamp we are proposing.
Even after 4-5 yrs experience from our seniors, we still are strugling to implement the envisaged plan....
looking forward for more comments from the batch.........
Clarifying the doubts raised in the same order
1. Which team has which part in which event: This is an effort to ensure that the whole batch takes part in all the events. When we claim that every event is a batch event (and all interested students take part to make it successful) why not bestow the responsibility of same on each individual and induce a feeling of belongingness.
2. The selection procedure of teams is an operational issue and can be discussed if this plan is approved by the batch. However for Sysco we can have a test which checks proficiency of applicants in web development and IT management.
3. Regarding transparency of selection is concerned the answer lies in selecting good students. More since new teams are being structured the probability of favoritism is low.
4. Control of non performing members: This is happening in current situation also. In each team there are active partners and sleeping members. The new system is function based approach in fact ensures that the work will be done by enthusiast members of team. For eg. now if team Samiksha wants to get some IT related work done it has to approach Bhagyashri only. In the new system they can approach Sysco team as a whole and get their work done.
5. Multiple team roles: a person with multiple proficiencies can work in multiple teams but to maximise his output he will be assigned role in single team only initially. Any expansion in teams would be performance based rather than interview based.
6. Election of coordinators: Batch consensus (60%) + performance (40%)
7. Cooperation with peer batch: as a matter of fact we can cooperate only if we get same response in return. This is a contagious issue and my personal opinion will not reflect the batch opinion.
8. Implementation of plan in 2-3 years: This plan should be rolled out in single phase. Transfer of control can be easily done by the concerned members.
I would like to provide my inputs on the issues in the same order as mentioned above;
1. I strongly believe, u need to hold responsible a particular bunch of people or an coordinator for that matter for an particular event. Its very impractical to have no dedicated team for an event. Remember we are not working fulltime for any event here..
2 & 3. Selection procedure for teams, i believe should be transparent. But we also need to remember that team selection process will be held in just 1.5 month's time from the juniors' advent. There is bound be an gray area in this case, a element of subjectivity...
4. We are hereby admitting the fact that we presently have sleeping members in teams, so we need to consider this fact, that its bound to happen. We need to understand that, a few members in a team are over-active to say, which then blurs our definition of sleeping members. We compare against the peer, or against competition...
5. Multiple roles: is very important part of the batch, where people contribute to many different teams. This shud be promoted.
6. Coordinator - its more of a election than selection, so heavier weigtage on Consensus is desired, but to quantify, figures to me shud be 75% Consensus - 25% performance. But the present figures, proposed by Kuldeep are also fine.
7. Cooperation with peer batch - is like walking on border of INDIA-PAK, u dont know, who will shoot u first, INDIA or PAK.Be careful on this front - is all i want to say.
8. Implementation of this plan in few years time, was my suggestion so as to avoid many objectins, apprehensions about the plan, because nobody has tested, used or validated this plan or model. Big bang implementation to me is too risky a proposition, Rest is for the batch to decide. Remember there is always resistance to change,,,
Just a small thought onm INDO-PAK border issue...
Is the fear because of shootout or is the shootout because of fear?
Academic Interaction can be efficiently managed by the Acad Secy n CR only... no need to have more people.
The major crux of this structure is that the whole gamut of activities would be under one banner i.e. LAKSHYA... means various events would come under the brand Lakshya, and there will be no team as Lakshya Team rather for vaious heads under Lakshya. This issue was raised sometime back also when seniors were there, infact it would be great in showcassing one brand name to the outside world, we already are fragmented within NITIE which causes confusion to the outside world... so our endeavour should be to minimize it. And ultimately all (those who r working) are benefitting PGDIE not any particular team or event. But the problem lies in breaking the age old convention and bring this change.Would this change be welcomed by the batch is still a dubious question. Its gonna be tough, bt cn prove to be a REengineering in the whole system.
The number of persons per team should be reassessed, and properly discussed to minimize dissatisfaction amongst the team members.
On a whole the structure is revolutionary, but like any other system our system is also resistant to change... its gonna be tuff guys nd yes it would be a transition (which might take a few years) before it takes proper shape.
Post a Comment