From the very beginning of the project, the group jumped right into the discussion of the project, rather than determine team mechanics or organizational structure. For instance, we assign a team leader to the group because: 1) we felt that there was really a need for one, and 2) we felt comfortable playing off each other teammate's strengths in order to divide and complete the project tasks. Communication, as in any project, was a very important aspect that was addressed early on during the forming stage. By explaining our availability for the remainder of the class session, we were able to plan and setup modes for communication, many of which would help provide a productive work setting without having to only work in person. The use email as a communication tool was necessary to maintain a way of providing input and share ideas at different times, yet not create redundant work for other members or risk losing information in the dispersion of multiple versions of documents. By using such a platform, team members were also given the ability to review the most recent edits to any presentations or papers. This helped to align the strategies of each member when coming up with an end result, and to refer back to previous versions in the case of a disputed edit. Our team leader, Stephen, made this a great success.
When the situation arrived where we had to make a decision, we opened up the floor for comments and agreed on what to do next. For the most part, our decisions helped guide the team towards a successful project. Stephen was more knowledgeable about the pharmaceutical industry, so when it came to explaining the industry, he was the best fit for this job. Norma was the most familiar with IT project management, so she set up the SBU for the group to be successful in completing part two of the project. Tanya had a great deal of knowledge with working in contracts, so she was able to show justifications