Imatron Case Analysis

Imatron fact epitome By Team Synergy Problem Identification The Remote Imaging Division (RID) of Imatron is prudent for the development of a satellite camera to monitor environmental threats for the U. S. government. This honk is of trem windupous significance because it leave al star provide future technology and profitability for Imatron. The dispatch has a strict schedule to meet in regards to the requirements or else penalties depart be placed on the company if the deadlines argon not met. There appears to be contests of intra-group dynamics within the squad as tumefy as psyche cooperation differences.The differences of opinion amongst Lovas and Bennett do become hostile and produce alienated others within the group. The bitter relationship is threatening the entire jut and has placed tension on Gary Pinto, who is running out of time and options in deciding the best application program for the system. Pinto is aware of the dynamics surrounding the devil main prot agonists. He has been really conscientious when bulking with the conflicts and is very accommodating to the entire group as they appear to be negatively bear on by the conflict presented by the two individuals.There seems to be gossip and behind the scenes communication that is relating to the project. This appears to be causing more complications to the process. It in like manner seems that the team is encountering social loafing because no oneness wants to get involved in the conflict between the two engineers. The deficiency of communication between the two leads, and their inability to work together, is resulting in un accomplished tasks. Problem Analysis There are several underlying problems within this team. Bennett and Lovas are both unwilling to compromise and join their bearings which is holding up the entire project.The two engineers are very competitive because they both whole step they are more knowledgeable than the other. Because of this conflict, team members avoid speaking up during meetings. They are being asked for input by Pinto and they seem to be accommodating rather than giving their perspectives. During the meetings there are no open-ended discussions or effective problem solving. There appears to be divergent thinking happening but no compromise is being obtained. The biggest issue is the lack of trust within the team.Bennett and Lovas are unable to form an effective confederacy due to this issue. The lack of trust could also lead the group to losing faith in Pinto because he has been struggle to fix this situation between Bennett and Lovas. With the lack of trust, it is more than likely that the perception of the abilities of the all three senior members is being questioned. All three of these problems directly correlate with each other. The correlation can be viewed in reverse. The lack of trust within the team stems from the feeling that Pinto cannot resolve Lovas and Bennetts conflict.This distrust in the projects leade r causes the lack of communication between members because honest opinions could dominancely lead to more conflict. These two problems are caused because of the two mechanical engineers unwillingness to see how each others input and criticism could pull ahead the project as a whole. Ultimately, there is very little respect for each others expertness and talents. Currently, the situation is problematic for everyone and its hard to detect which needs could benefit from this lack of trust, respect, and communication.The main floor of the three problems is that the two engineers have two very different ways of thinking. The most apparent benefit is that Lovas organized and methodical thinking, and Bennetts risk taking approach could lead to a prototype that is well thought out during the planning process, yet very progressive during the execution process. It is difficult to see how the team could benefit from the different perspectives because these two members must realize the bene fits first. Another underlying cause to these problems is Pintos lack of direction in the project.Having the two engineers create two alternative traffic patterns was the easy, yet ineffective way to deal with this issue. Creating two alternate prototypes forced a situation where one of the two engineers would be made to feel inferior to the other. The actual outcome, Lovas creating the superior good example, was predictable, and the worst possible because Bennett is less graceful in admitting defeat and will take a larger emotional toll. If Pinto would have been stronger initially and forced the two designers to create one model this situation would not have arisen.This situation does have a beneficial aspect in that an almost usable model has been created, and with the proper leadership here on out the team could really make something amazing. Pinto now will have to nurse Bennetts ego, but if done well plentiful could stimulate a situation where Bennett is able to throw his cre ativity into full gear and adapt Lovas model so that it will meet the lightweight criteria. Lovas somewhat viable model will be the mention in implementing an action plan that will address the teams inter-personal issues and create a product that will end with Satera being a success.Action Plan Both Lovas and Bennett have their unique qualities that they bring to the table that differentiate them from one another. Gary Pinto has been described in the case as being known for his honesty and respect. It has been established that he combines evaluate for team members strengths and provides constructive criticism for their weaknesses. Gary Pintos first accusatory to meet is his trade to select which support structure was preferred over the other for the protection of the imaging system. The clear winner was Lovass honeycomb structure which withstood the vibration in the testing lab.However, Pinto is facing a tough decision of whether the honeycomb structure is feasible to meet the criteria for Satera. Unfortunately, it was deemed too heavy and would need further expertise. The second objective that Gary Pinto must fulfill is altering the honeycomb design to one that meets Sateras criteria. Pinto can only accomplish this through sufficient help of his team. Pinto should look to the teams expertise and notice that Bennett has an expertise towards innovative ideas and may be able to come up with a way to make the honeycomb design lighter o fulfill the necessary requirements. Gary Pinto can use both Ira Lovas and David Bennett to their full potentials by having them work together to complete a well-rounded support structure for the imaging system. The issue at hand is getting Lovas and Bennett to cooperate. Gary Pinto can gain success for this project by sitting down Lovas and Bennett to justify to them both through the techniques of supportive communication. This technique of supportive communication will explain what each individual brings to the table and ho w it can benefit the team as a whole.He can describe Lovass brainy design and then explain the issues with the support structure being too heavy. Pintos can then cover to Bennett and describe his strengths of innovation and ambition, then direct him through a problem-oriented route to help Lovas make the design lighter. By sitting both Lovas and Bennett down to support them and validate what each of them brings to the table, Pinto can rely on them working together to achieve a common goal at hand.A downfall to this proposed solution of speech Lovas and Bennett together to implement each of their strengths is the factor that they may altogether dismiss the idea of collaboration. This is a flagitious risk that Gary Pinto faces due to the animosity that Lovas and Bennett have directed towards one another. The best solution to counter this out of the blue(predicate) scenario is by motivating Lovas and Bennett through a paid bonus if they are able to meet the warm approaching deadli ne. Another key aspect of the conflict is that David Bennett seems to be the aggressor in the issues with Lovas.Bennett seems to be affected more by the lack of trust in his innovative ideas. By Pinto allowing Bennett to work with Lovas to complete this design, he can be motivated to take the lead on future projects based on the potential success of this current project at hand. Pinto can further kick upstairs Bennett by promising that if the project goes well, he will establish a Research and Development department in which Bennett will be the sole leader of the improvement projects. This will be a paradise for Bennett and provide him plenty of chance to implement his unorthodox ways to come up with innovation.Such a plan will help encourage Lovas as well, since he will have fewer clashes (if any) with Bennetts cognitive style and will have more chance to stay concentrated on the projects. The proposed solution of having Lovas and Bennett work together is feasible in time, money, and resources. Gary Pinto has a strong set of team members and must use them to their full potentials. By motivating them and creating knowingness to their skillsets, Pinto can open the door to success both in this project and in future projects, by creating interpersonal relationships, and strengthening overall team cohesion.