The Vigilance Project - Case Study Example

The Vigilance Project al Affiliation The Vigilance Project Meredith s that for any organizational processes to be executed effectively. There has to be some level of term harmony between the parties involved particularly in an organization where there is a high level of bureaucracy. “Most organizations rely on effective teamwork so as to achieve the organizational goals and objectives” (Xyrichis & Ream, 2008). In the case of PharMed International, there appears a lot of conflict of interest with different teams pulling in different directions.

This is irrespective of the fact that all the members involved in the development of Vigilance, which is supposed to be a new event database system. Vigilance is aimed at harmonizing record keeping and recording by the company across the division employees in different parts of the world. For the success implementation of the project, it is expected that the project team works together to ensure that the project is successful. However, the fact that there is a lot of bureaucracy with different project team members trying to prove superiority over others, the likelihood of the Vigilance project being successful is at doubt.

Arnold, (2005) analyzes the major causes of conflict in the workplace citing that there must be a reason for such conflicts to arise. There must be a reason specific members of the project team were chosen for the project including those in the sub-teams. This implies that every individual on the team is equally important as the other. Frank Lanigan, who is the project communication lead, is charged with the responsibility of ensuring effective communication between the project managers and ensuring that all communication is done in good time.

From France is the project manner Didier Armani. The sub-teams from the U.S. and France are also charged with the responsibility of identifying the appropriate fields that should appear on the screen of the system. Conversely, the French counterparts are supposed to map the data from the existing database and transfer the same to Vigilance. In this case, the members of the U.S team have prior experience in the development of a similar project called Perspective while working at Valmed. From the onset, Didier who is the project manager is very restrictive of the information flow despite all the members working on the same initiative. The U.S.

team feel disgruntled because Didier does not give most of the opinions a fair due hearing. This is an indication that there appears to be some conflict between the U.S members and those from France. However, the explanation given as causing the lack of communication flow is that the members from France were keen on maintaining the chain of command. When the sub-team members express their concerns to Frank Lanigan, the same is expressed to lance Paulson who is the head of the Drug Safety Division.

Instead of Lance addressing the issue raised by the American team, he appoints sub-team sponsors to try and mediate disputes on behalf of the top management. This strategy may appear effective on face value but is less likely to solve the problem. The members are likely to view the selected sponsors as advancing the interest of the appointing party. This means that the decisions taken by the sponsors are not likely to be impartial but rather based on the instructions given by the superiors. In addition, sending an email to the feuding team shows a lack of concern by the top management of PharMed where the expected general perception would remain that the management team did not address the issue effectively.

If the problem persists, the lack of cooperation between the team members is likely to affect the sacksful implementation of Vigilance.ReferencesArnold, J. (Ed.). (2005). Work psychology: Understanding human behavior in the workplace. Pearson Education.Meredith B. R. (2011). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(3).Xyrichis, A., & Ream, E. (2008). Teamwork: a concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing, 61(2), 232-241.