With the Stakes High, A Lucent Duo Conquers Distance and Culture Wall Street Jou

Question

With the Stakes High, A Lucent Duo Conquers Distance and Culture Wall Street Journal; New York; Apr 23, 1999; By Thomas Petzinger Jr.; Holmdel, N.J. -- IMAGINE DESIGNING the most complex product in your company's history. You need 500 engineers for the job. They will assemble the world's most delicate hardware and write more than a million lines of code. In communicating, the margin for error is minuscule. Now, scatter those 500 engineers over 13 time zones. Over three continents. Over five states in the U.S. alone. The Germans schedule to perfection. The Americans work on the fly. In Massachusetts, they go to work early. In New Jersey, they stay late. Now you have some idea of what Bill Klinger and Frank Polito have been through in the past 18 months. As top software-development managers in Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs division, they played critical roles in creating a new fiber-optic phone switch called the Bandwidth Manager, which sells for about $1 million, the kind of global product behind the company's surging earnings. The high-stakes development was Lucent's most complex undertaking by far since its spin-off from AT&T in 1996. Managing such a far-flung staff ("distributed development," it's called) is possible only because of technology. But as the two Lucent leaders painfully learned, distance still magnifies differences, even in a high-tech age. "You lose informal interaction -- going to lunch, the water cooler," Mr. Klinger says. "You can never discount how many issues get solved that way." THE PRODUCT GREW as a hybrid of exotic, widely dispersed technologies: "light-wave" science from Lucent's Merrimack Valley plant, north of Boston, where Mr. Polito works; "cross-connect" products here in New Jersey, where Mr. Klinger works; timing devices from the Netherlands; and optics from Germany. Development also demanded multiple locations because Lucent wanted a core model as a platform for special versions for foreign and other niche markets. Involving overseas engineers in the flagship product would speed the later development of spin-offs and impress foreign customers. And rushing to market meant tapping software talent wherever it was available -- ultimately at Lucent facilities in Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina and India. "The scary thing, scary but exciting, was that no one had really pulled this off on this scale before," says Mr. Polito. Communication technology was the easy part. Lashing together big computers in different cities assured everyone was working on the same up-to-date software version. New project data from one city were instantly available on Web pages everywhere else. Test engineers in India could tweak prototypes in New Jersey. The project never went to sleep. Technology, however, couldn't conquer cultural problems, especially acute between Messrs. Klinger's and Polito's respective staffs in New Jersey and Massachusetts. Each had its own programming traditions and product histories. Such basic words as "test" could mean different things. A programming chore requiring days in one context might take weeks in another. Differing work schedules and physical distance made each location suspect the other of slacking off. "We had such clashes," says Mr. Klinger. Personality tests revealed deep geographic differences. Supervisors from the sleek, glass-covered New Jersey office, principally a research facility abounding in academics, scored as "thinking" people who used cause-and-effect analysis. Those from the old, brick facility in Massachusetts, mainly a manufacturing plant, scored as "feeling" types who based decisions on subjective, human values. Sheer awareness of the differences ("Now I know why you get on my nerves!") began to create common ground. Amid much cynicism, the two directors hauled their technical managers into team exercises -- working in small groups to scale a 14-foot wall and solve puzzles. It's corny, but such methods can accelerate trust-building when time is short and the stakes are high. At one point Mr. Klinger asked managers to show up with the product manuals from their previous projects -- then, in a ritualistic break from technical parochialism, instructed everyone to tear the covers to pieces. MORE THAN anything else, it was sheer physical presence -- face time -- that began solidifying the group. Dozens of managers began meeting fortnightly in rotating cities, socializing as much time as their technical discussions permitted. (How better to grow familiar than over hot dogs, beer and nine innings with the minor league Durham Bulls?) Foreign locations found the direct interaction especially valuable. "Going into the other culture is the only way to understand it," says Sigrid Hauenstein, a Lucent executive in Nuremberg, Germany. "If you don't have a common understanding, it's much more expensive to correct it later." Eventually the project found its pace. People began wearing beepers to eliminate time wasted on voice-mail tag. Conference calls at varying levels kept everyone in the loop. Staffers posted their photos in the project's Web directory. Many created personal pages. "It's the ultimate democracy of the Web," Mr. Klinger says. The product is now shipping-on schedule, within budget and with more technical versatility than Lucent expected. Distributed development "paid off in spades," says Gerry Butters, Lucent optical-networking chief. Even as it helps build the infrastructure of a digitally connected planet, Lucent is rediscovering the importance of face-to-face interaction. All the bandwidth in the world can convey only a fraction of what we are.

answer the following questions.

(1) Could the 500 Lucent engineers who worked on the Bandwidth Manager project be called a team? Why or why not? Could Bill Klinger and Frank Polito be called a team? Explain.

(2) What role, if any, did trust play in this case?

(3)What lessons about managing virtual teams does this case teach us?

(4) Which of the key attributes of high-performance teams are evident in this case? Which are not?

(5) Based on what you have read, what was the overriding key to success in this case?

_____________ Case studies have been adapted from INC 5000 (“Best Compensation: Cashing In” and “The Productivity-Boosting Gain-Sharing Report” by Tom Ehrenfeld) and fastcompany.com (“What Makes Teams Work?” by Regina Fazio Maruca).

Explanation / Answer

1.Yes, the 500 engineers could be called a team. The 500 engineers were indulged in the job of assembling the world’s most delicate hardware and write more than a million lines of code for Lucent Technologies. Though they worked from different locations and diversities and had communication gap, they worked towards a common goal. Hence the engineers worked on the bandwidth manager could be called a team.

Bill Klinger and Frank Polito also can be called a team because both of them worked together for creating Bandwidth Manager for Lucent Technologies. They had underdone conflict due to the cultural differences and lack of physical interaction, both understood their mistakes and worked towards achieving the common goal and became successful.

2. Trust plays a strong role in this case because the engineers work from different locations of the world which include different time zones, different continents and different cities. There is difference in time zone, culture, traditions and histories but they are working on developing common product, the bandwidth manager. Most of the employees work without physical interaction which affects effective communication. In such condition trust is the main factor that has made the successful development of the product possible.

3. This case shows that it is difficult to manage virtual teams if there are not enough face to face interactions. Though there are many facilities available to make communication and access of information possible from every corner of the world, cultural diversities makes it difficult to manage the teams. The team members should interact face to face and understand each other to build strong relationship for the success of virtual teams.

4. The key attributes of high performance teams that are evident in this case are shared vision of making the new product, dedication of the team members, shared responsibility, participative leadership of Bill Klinger and Frank Polito and clear and high communication through conference calls and face to face discussions. The attributes that lack here are the collaboration between team members due to the distance.

5. The overriding key to success in this case was the clear communication established between the different members sitting in different countries through face to face discussions, web directories that provide information on team members with photos and conference calls involving all the team members. The main reason behind success was the face to face interaction that helped to eliminate cultural differences.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.