A Participatory Evaluation Process to Strengthen the Effectiveness of Industry Teams in Achieving Resource Use Efficiency: The Target Zero Programme of Christchurch City Council

Most of the teams interviewed felt the structure of the programme encouraged them to achieve. However, one team suggested there were other problem-solving tools that could be offered to participating teams other than process mapping, and input and output measurement; these included effective brainstorming, and solution matrices.

However, not all teams reported good, productive relationships with the consultants selected to work with them. Difficulties cited included : a mismatch in objectives (e.g., the consultant being too green for the group) and an uncertainty about what the role of the consultant should be resulting in an inability to ensure they got the best out of them.

The majority of companies that participate in the Target Zero programme make some noteworthy and cost-saving impact on their waste streams (we assume the CCC hold overall statistics for this across all the participating companies). Despite this, a much repeated comment from teams, particularly in the context of discussing maintaining motivation, is that this would be possible once they have a few achievements under their belt. Without doing detailed case studies of the individual companies concerned, there are two possible interpretations: that the 6-month period the teams are currently supervised and supported by the CCC is insufficient to see companies through to substantial gains (although these gains may be made later), or the emphasis on money saving as a primary goal for Target Zero means that little is done to celebrate the small steps and less glamourous activities. One company we interviewed stated clearly that their senior management had held little regard for the small $2- 3,000 savings that had been made, a view echoed in different forms by others. Similarly another company noted that the completion of a project was held up for some time, although only dependent on securing a small piece of equipment, because the savings were not seen as significant. At the same time it was also commonly repeated that staff motivation is brought about by seeing their ideas translated into action. The visibility of an activity, however humble - such as recycling small-scale kitchen waste, increases staff involvement and awareness, and ultimately satisfaction (and becomes important for spreading a culture of waste minimisation/resource use efficiency). Major plant upgrades have dramatic impact and can be important in convincing management and others of the value of undertaking a structured waste minimisation appraisal. However, these are inevitably one-off activities. It is the smaller, ongoing activities that are less likely to be celebrated but are more likely to influence the desired culture of change within the organisation.

Team selection in Target Zero has been a well-considered topic, and it seems that much of the effort in setting up teams in Target Zero has centred on this stage. Only one company interviewed considered their team had been too small and most considered they had the right mix of people, occasionally adding to the team as it became apparent that representatives from different parts of the company were necessary. The perceived wisdom regarding structure of teams (selection of staff from a range of areas within the company, inclusion of the maintenance staff and some management link etc.) in order to achieve within the period of the Target Zero programme appears to be working. Some comments will be made later regarding the selection of team members and the longer-term prospects for the teams' success.

Time is again a much cited variable that operates to constrain teams in their achievement during the Target Zero programme. Time for staff to undertake waste minimisation work is a function of managerial and organisational support, priority setting and the individual enthusiasm of the participating staff. Many companies commented that 'in principal' the time was available but in practice this proved a limiting factor. During the programme the role of the consultant in lifting the priority of Target Zero work (the consultant is coming, have we done what we said we would?!) has some influence on the issue of time. This priority lifting can be achieved within the company in other ways. In at least one case senior management called for regular reporting on the activities of the team. The companies that seemed to have achieved most during their participation in the programme did not appear to have had undue difficulties securing time for their staff involvement.

3.2 Process: Continued development of teams beyond their participation in the Target Zero programme

The immediate focus of the programme is on the performance monitoring of waste minimisation projects and activities. However, in the bigger scheme of things, there is another equally, or even more, important issue. This is improving the ability or the capacity of individuals, groups and organisations in the Target Zero programme to develop their own culture of self-assessment and to establish their own approach to thinking strategically about how to bring about the full range of desired changes that the programme seeks.

All of the above issues that relate to teams and their ability to achieve during the Target Zero programme are equally important once the programme has ended. This includes the selection of team members, securing of adequate time, the provision of 'a motivator', the acknowledgement of success, and grounding in a new way of looking at waste (i.e., the analysis and problem solving ability).

From our interviews with teams it appeared that the difference between a team that will progress and possibly expand after completion of the programme and those that will perhaps continue only until major projects have been achieved can be influenced through the extent to which the above issues have been addressed during the Target Zero programme, and through the 'after programme service' of the CCC and consultants (particularly in providing networking opportunities and further training).

Selection of team members is one area that can influence the long-term development of the team that is worth commenting on further. The teams that we viewed as having the greatest prospects for long-term achievement had considered aspects other than the position of the person within the company in their team member selection. Staff with what could loosely be called 'green goals' (although all would hasten to add they were not 'greenies') had greater motivation to be involved in Target Zero, and teams with goals other than cost-saving and efficiency were more likely to be continuing beyond the Target Zero programme. As one person put it it comes down to personal goals -- if you are interested in achieving something you stay more motivated. Clearly management staff in companies have a greater interest in cost-saving than shop floor staff -- many of whom associate this drive for efficiency with retrenchment and job loss (so much so that this would be a worthy point to consider addressing in any future Target Zero programme information that is distributed to companies). One of the teams we spoke to that was also one of the most successful pointed to three key ingredients that were essential in starting up a 'successful' team: these are in descending order of importance:

1. People that were prepared to be team members
   
2. People that had 'green' interests
   
3. People that were key personnel within the plant (as above).

Clearly this is only feasible where staff numbers allow for such selection.

Another important factor in team achievement provided by the programme is the networking opportunity. A number of teams cited the incentive of seeing the achievements of others, as well as the potential to learn new ideas from a seemingly unrelated source. Holding meetings for the teams 'off site' also acted as a 'perk' for teams and were considered by at least one company to be part of the team building exercise (all travelling together in one vehicle).

There are also some organisation-specific context issues that appear influential in determining the long- term effectiveness of teams and their development to independent and interdependent groups. This is, broadly speaking, whether the company in which the team operates has a well developed 'learning' and/or team-based culture. The companies that placed some value on staff learning and training, and team work had an advantage and were more likely to be the same companies that had ongoing, successful waste minimisation teams. These companies were also more likely to be aware of 'team process issues'.

However, it should be said that the absence of this supportive company environment can be compensated for. Managerial support can be secured once the team is underway, through active promotion of the team and its activities. Although many companies spoke of getting memos out to staff and making presentations to managers, few were taking any genuine proactive stance. The presence of a motivated team member with leadership qualities and/or the active support of a consultant interested in team development could assist the team itself in developing a 'learning culture'.

From our evaluations it was clear that monitoring team performance (i.e., process issues) as opposed to team achievements was an area that few teams, and even consultants, were comfortable with. The common response was that we get things done, so there is no need to worry about it. However, the counterpoint to this is that it is equally important to find ways of improving the efficiency of how a team operates as it is to form a team to improve the efficiency of the way a factory production line uses resources.

Looking across the teams we evaluated we can see some that are in a dependent phase (see Appendix I for the model of team development through phases of dependence, independence and interdependence). They are focussed on task achievement, and regard process issues (relationship building, networking, etc.) as a distraction to the 'real' task. Because of this focus these groups tended to rate themselves highly on their performance. In contrast other teams were focussed on both task and process issues and, while they generally had similar skills in relation to task issues, were acutely aware of their shortcomings and were looking for areas in which to improve. Accordingly, they tended to rate themselves more in need of improvement.

From the second round of evaluations undertaken with five companies it was apparent that some learning about teams and team 'process' had gone on. Teams interviewed were more critical and less glib about their potential and the difficulties they might face in working together. This is likely to be largely a function of greater experience of the pitfalls. Two teams mentioned they considered the first evaluation we had undertaken with them to be a 'training experience' that got them thinking about teams.

The tension between emphasising 'process' and 'task' is common to change-driving programmes such as Target Zero. Many programmes tend to oscillate from one perspective to the other, first emphasizing task achievement and the production of programme benefits (i.e., getting the job done) and then swinging back to a process effort in order to develop more capacity for long-term change. Getting the right interrelationship between achieving task benefits and developing effective and sustainable capacity to make the process ongoing is crucial.

In many cases, the development of teams could be supported by a two-step training approach. There is a need to provide training to consultants who can pass on guidelines and approaches to their teams. Equally, teams will require access to their own individual training in improving their own team processes. In some cases, and depending on team maturity, this could be generic. In other cases teams will have identified particular needs (e.g., facilitation, conflict resolution).

However, just training alone is not the answer. More than any other activity, and by its very nature, building the capacity for groups to mature depends for its effectiveness on participant ownership and commitment. Its success will rely on the need for more participatory and client-driven approaches to capacity monitoring that strengthen the ability of teams and team-members for ongoing self-assessment and correction. This component of the programme is less about measuring and describing progress against pre-set targets and more about building capacity, diagnosing constraints and opportunities and trying to make programmes grow and expand.

Such evaluation processes can be built in to everyday team activities. These might be facilitated by a team member or consultant. Beyond that there will remain a role for more rigorous evaluation to be undertaken periodically by external, skilled evaluators. This latter activity will both provide feedback for the CCC Target Zero team, as well as for the individual teams concerned.

3.3 Environment: The relationship between the team, the organisation and beyond

The teams that had vision and life beyond the period of their involvement in the Target Zero programme had clearly addressed issues of both internal and to a certain extent external networking. All teams that took part in the evaluations were asked about their relationships with management and other staff within the company and with contacts in other manufacturing companies, agencies or individuals who might contribute to their waste minimisation work. Most teams responded confidently about their internal relationships although these somewhat glib responses were often later negated by stories of lack of management interest and support, or difficulties in securing the cooperation of co-workers.

The most promising teams were all those who had learnt the value of both internal and external networking -- often through a failure in their waste minimisation work caused by a breakdown in these. For example, one company commented that they had uncovered considerable savings that could be made making it unnecessary to order the same quantity of product they had been using in the past, but had failed to pass this information on to the person responsible for the purchasing! Similarly some teams noted the difficulties they were having finding recycling firms to accept their waste product. On the positive side it was also not uncommon to hear tales of problem solutions gleaned from site visits to other companies or from the meetings at Target Zero where teams from a range of different companies shared their ideas on waste minimisation. One company also relayed a story of getting its customers to return unused parts of their product for reuse in the manufacturing process.

Teams were variable in their use of media such as notice boards, staff meetings and newsletters to promote their activities. Most of the current teams spoke of the 'need to do this' but it had clearly, in many cases, not been of sufficient priority to be undertaken. Assigning the task of communication and publicity to individuals within the team might raise the imperative for this to be done.

At the moment the structure of the Target Zero programme appears to support a degree of networking but the principal of developing good relationships and the ideas and encouragement to do this is minimal. Such relationships are crucial to the spread of the concept of resource use efficiency throughout the organisation.

3.4 Spread: The inclusion of resource use efficiency in the organisational culture

There is an acknowledgement by all the people that we have talked to during the course of this project that the Target Zero programme is more than undertaking specific projects to minimise waste. Roughly put, the collective vision that emerges is one that establishes an ongoing process for waste minimisation that grows within and among companies. For this to happen teams need to develop the capacity to move beyond the completion of task-bounded activities to more actively catalyse change within their organisations.

One indication that the initial Target Zero introduction to waste minimisation has expanded in some way throughout the company is its integration with other environmental management practices (and hence expansion beyond the original concept of resource use efficiency to include pollution minimisation etc.). Some companies indicated that they already had some kind of environmental performance monitoring (ISO accreditation etc.) and had linked their waste minimisation work with this, which gave it some long-term legitimacy within the company. However, while this may suggest that the Target Zero work will extend into the everyday management practices of the company, the extent to which this is the result of the influence of Target Zero on the company is questionable.

There is some evidence of Target Zero teams having influence on the company culture beyond the initial team members. One company commented that if they had to start the team from scratch today they would be inundated by staff who wished to be part of it. This same company had deliberately chosen staff initially who were motivated by their own 'green goals' and who were respected senior operators (i.e., role models). Members of this team had pursued their own projects independently of the team and the Target Zero programme but through the support they had gained by being part of the Target Zero team. Companies that were clearly 'spreading the word' had actively initiated new teams that were working in other areas of the company. The leadership of these teams might, at least initially, include team members from the original Target Zero team, hence the skills of managing teams and participating in team work were also being spread throughout the organisation. This is dependent on the size of the company and the skill level of staff available.

A number of teams spoke of 'attitude' problems within their companies, and recognised the difficulties they would have to work around to overcome staff suspicion and gain their support. One team noted how important it was to get people who were closest to 'the problem' to contribute ideas to its solution, and also how important it was for that idea to be seen to be followed up.

Few teams had truly actively promoted themselves or the concept of waste minimisation. Most teams have been largely task focussed and awaiting something significant to boast about. Those that have attempted this spoke of some difficulty in relating the concept (although one team seemed to have some success with translating it to the domestic recycling scheme -- the 'green bins at your gate'). This is a lost opportunity for connection with staff throughout the company and for initiating some attitude change on the shop floor. Teams also spoke of the need for Target Zero itself to be better promoted such that the companies taking part in the programme could utilise the programme profile to promote their efforts both within the company and outside. This promotion could include publicity materials such as posters, but also some form of certification system that would verify the 'up skilling' and training participants had gained through joining the programme.

Back to contents  

4. Team Evaluation Feedback

This section is a summary of the feedback from all the teams that took part in the evaluations. It captures what teams had to say about goals, results and productivity, team structure and team operation.The information in this section was used to create the overview (Section 3).

4.1 Goals

When teams were asked about their goals, all teams readily identified the linked aims of:

• making cost-savings, and
• reducing resource use and/or increasing production efficiency.

These goals were often further refined to detail specific waste minimisation projects that they had identified through their involvement in the programme.

A couple of teams saw this as the main reason for their team's existence and their involvement. However, others provided a number of other goals with and without prompting.

These are outlined below and collectively provide a number of additional entry points, or potential benefits of the programme, which can be used to highlight and promote the benefits of participating in the Target Zero programme to companies, teams and individuals.

• Learning about resource use and waste in their companies. This was noted as important by the consultants and by some of the teams. It was pointed out that this involves a systems way of looking at things and requires more than just finding a problem 'to fix'.
• Being environmentally friendly. Environmental concerns were often mentioned (although one team saw an emphasis on that aspect would discourage rather than encourage involvement). These were mentioned as being of personal interest to the team members, as well as a growing appreciation by management that market considerations are increasingly becoming a driving factor -- especially in Europe. As one team member pointed out Markets want to see that products are being developed with an environmental focus. The focus is no longer 'cradle to grave' but now 'conception to reincarnation'.
• Building project management skills. The Target Zero initiative was seen as a good way by many team members (and by some management) to learn about and gain skills in project management.
• Building team and problem-solving skills. The Target Zero initiative was seen as a good way by many team members (and by some management) to learn about and gain skills in team approaches and problem solving.
• Providing networking opportunities. The programme was seen as an opportunity for staff to interact with other organisations to share ideas and knowledge, and be exposed to the way other companies were dealing with problems.
• Providing a tidier/cleaner workplace.
• A good opportunity to look at new technology in an area, review what the company already has and get in touch with what is currently happening in the field.
• Creating a paradigm shift beyond the team. As one team member said, This means changing the culture within the company from creating waste, to recycling waste, and ultimately to avoiding waste in all areas of their work.
• Being a vehicle for sharing ideas. A number of team members said this was their reason for joining the team; it gave them a venue for bringing forward ideas -- and an opportunity for acting on them.
• Personal satisfaction -- the pleasure of seeing things working out all right!

4.2 Results and productivity

4.2.1 Does the team have clearly identified actionable steps to achieve its goals?

Task goals

In the first instance all the teams had identified projects through the programme that would enable them to meet their goals of reducing waste/saving money. All teams agreed that clearly actionable steps were a good thing to have set out, although there was some variance to how well they felt they had done that.

A number of teams pointed out that it was equally important to undertake low-cost but highly visible projects as it was to tackle the bigger projects with the potential to save more money. Often the smaller projects are the ones that help people see that something is happening.

In the first round of evaluations the newer teams pointed out that this was a step that they were working through with their consultants. In the second round of interviews, and having just been through the Target Zero programme, teams acknowledged the strengths of the process. The process works well because it is structured and provides a step-by-step procedure to achieving longer term goals. As one team put it: We knew we were wasting something but we didn't think through the problem, and were not aware of how big it could be. Now we walk through the plant and when you see a problem you think 'what can we do, how shall we do it, who can we get to work on it?"

One team commented that they felt the tools supplied by the Target Zero process (i.e., process mapping and input/output) were limited. Other skills/tools were also needed, particularly to help with problem solving, and measuring.

Process goals

We found few instances where teams had looked at the less tangible goals they identified, e.g., building team skills, professional development skills, changing company culture, and sat down together to work out how they might go about doing that. As teams were asked to think about this during the evaluation, this was acknowledged as something that would be useful to do.

4.2.2 Does the team monitor its progress by concrete milestones?

The answer to this was similar to the above. All teams acknowledged the importance of doing this -- both to keep their projects on-track as well as to provide documentation of their successes that could be used to inform others. Again there was some variance as to how well they felt it had been done. The newer teams pointed out that this was a step they were working through with their consultants.

In terms of the less tangible goals that teams had identified around building professional development skills, changing company culture, etc.., there were really no examples of identified milestones. As teams thought about this during the evaluation, this was acknowledged as something that would be useful to do. Clearly, this needs some work because of the difficulties in choosing indicators and milestones in some of these areas.

4.2.3 Does the team regularly and frequently assess how well they are working together?

In general the teams said that they did not do this (particularly in any overt or formal manner), although some pointed out that the fact that projects were being done was a sufficient measure. Most teams acknowledged the need for this, particularly those who showed characteristics of teams who operate in a learning organisation.

One team who did feel they did a lot of learning through their involvement as a Target Zero project team said that they would have learnt more if they had done this. Members also felt that it also would have helped if the team had some understanding of team dynamics (i.e., the highs and lows of team work and how to manage through these).

It was also clear that this was an area that few teams, and even consultants, were comfortable with. The common response was that we get things done, so there is no need to worry about it. However, the counterpoint to this is that it is equally important to find ways of improving the efficiency of how a team operates as it is to form a team to improve the efficiency of the way a factory production line uses resources.

As above, the Target Zero process could be improved by providing tools and techniques to help in this area. Similarly work needs to be done to develop appropriate indicators that can be used to measure success.

4.2.4 Are the team's successes big and small acknowledged?

This was seen as an important mechanism for maintaining enthusiasm and motivation among team members, and among those whose continued support was necessary for project resourcing (management) or actioning (other staff members).

In the main most teams felt they were doing this to some extent or other. One team pointed out that it was good that the CCC through Target Zero also made efforts to acknowledge their success. Teams also expressed that they would like it if (or were particularly appreciative when), their company management acknowledged their success. Equally, most expressed the view that they could have done more to reward themselves (As one team member pointed out: it's not really a kiwi thing to announce your successes!).

4.3 Team structure

4.3.1 Is the team the right size -- with the right mix of players for your purpose?

The teams in the companies we visited ranged in size from three to ten. In the main teams were happy with their size, but three members did seem too small, and this appeared consistent with the problems those smaller teams experienced. Also the largest team interviewed worked initially in sub-teams. This feedback is consistent with documentation that points to a good team size of between five and eight people.

Similarly most teams seemed fairly happy with the mix of people that they had. It was generally agreed that a team needs to have at least one representative from each of the key areas in the company that they are trying to influence. Also there is fairly clear agreement that there needs to be a mix of management, technical and operational staff/supervisors. One consultant identified a generic model of one management/two supervisors/two engineers. Another team said it was important to ensure that the following personnel were represented in the team:

• Service people: those people responsible for actually moving rubbish and skips, etc.. around the plant.
• Engineering people
• A senior operator : someone who is respected by peers, with mana in the plant. ).

One of the teams we spoke to that was also one of the most successful went further than this and pointed to three key ingredients that were essential in starting up a 'successful' team: these are in descending order of importance:

1. People that were prepared to be team members
   
2. People that had 'green' interests
   
3. People that were key personnel within the plant (as above).

All teams seemed to agree that management support and awareness is essential. Perhaps one of the best examples of how management support can be institutionalised within an environmental perspective was illustrated by the company that operates a Target Zero team as an operational team looking at resource use efficiency, while a separate management team meets every 3 months to review 'big picture' environmental issues. This model seems to work well. However, discussions in other teams revealed mixed feelings about whether management should be directly represented on the teams. Some feel that the presence of management at all the team meetings may stifle junior staff from speaking out.

There was agreement that, whatever model is used, it is vitally important to put effort into ensuring that there are good communication feedback loops to link management and teams.

4.3.2 Does the team have the flexibility to bring in people and change membership to suit the current project?

With the exception of one team, all teams felt that they had the flexibility to involve other people as needed. This was subject to the time constraints and priorities that staff have in the normal course of their work.

Being able to go outside the group and get the people needed for any particular purpose and arrange with their immediate manager to secure them the time to get involved was seen as an important attribute for team members (or at least for some team members to have).

4.3.3 Does the team have the right resources (e.g., money, time, people)?

Money was not regarded as a limiting resource by any of the teams. They acknowledged that it was a case of finding projects that would save money, and clearly identifying and documenting so that money could be made available. The perception was that if management was satisfied with the relevance and costings of the project, they would be open to working on it. The need to prove a payback of 1-2 years was cited as a rough benchmark by a number of teams. Generally, if they wanted to tackle bigger, more costly, projects with longer payback times, it was recognised that getting project approval would become more of a challenge. This would require teams to have the skills and time to adequately investigate the feasibility of the project, document the costs and savings required, and present an 'exciting' package to management.

The main resource constraint that teams cited was time, or people. Most teams were positive that they did enjoy some flexibility and company support in terms of being able to find the time to do work themselves or engage the help of other staff as needed on projects. However, they also pointed out that often people had to drop Target Zero work when other things came along. Moreover, some companies have high seasonal work loads, and during these times teams could go several weeks without meeting.

One company had specifically allocated a percentage of a person's time to Target Zero activities and the team considered this vitally important. As one of them said, projects would flounder if we didn't have the time dedicated to work on these and constantly review what's happening. Getting Target Zero activities acknowledged in job descriptions, and formalised as a priority, was seen as a key success factor if it could be achieved.

4.3.4 Does the team meet frequently?

All teams identified regular and frequent meetings as being important and the visits of the consultant was often acknowledged as a motivation for this to happen. Equally, the time constraints identified above did have an impact on team meetings, and in some teams these were dropped at busy times.

4.4 Team operation

4.4.1 Does the team have effective leadership?

The initial response to this question was that things were fine, in the sense that all teams seemed to have an acknowledged leader. However, when asked about the different components of leadership team members readily identified a number of different areas (e.g., time management, facilitation, motivation) that were all equally important.

In some cases it was recognised that some of these roles were missing. In particular most teams felt they could do better in terms of providing motivation (see 4.7 below).

Often too it was recognised (particularly in the newer teams) that the consultants are playing a key role in providing these functions. In these cases teams recognised the need to think about putting steps in place to ensure that these different roles are continued after the consultant leaves. This may necessitate team members beginning to take responsibility for these roles in the near future.

A couple of the teams also mentioned that it was planned for members to gain team skills and experience through the exercise, and to subsequently become leaders of their own teams. In one case this has happened, and this has meant that, in one area of the company, production line staff gained the opportunity to build their own skills. Subsequently the responsibility of running these new teams was even passed on from the original Target Zero team member to the other staff. This is another important spin-off from the Target Zero project.

4.4.2 Do team members understand their roles and are they able to carry them out effectively?

Most teams responded to this question in terms of the skills and roles that members played in initiating and undertaking the waste minimisation projects that were identified through the programme. In this regard all the teams were happy that people knew their roles and were able to carry them out effectively.

4.4.3 Does the team have good networks: 1) internally with other staff; 2) with management; and 3) externally)?

1. Most teams were happy with their internal networks, particularly within departments. A couple of teams pointed to communication barriers between departments as being an issue to work on. It was also pointed out that if change, or improved practice,is sought in an area, then it is important to generate an open view around these (the team cannot be seen as coming in to blame people). Where companies had particularly good lines of communication with staff (e.g., newsletters, noticeboards, regular meetings), teams cited these as avenues of communication that they could work with as well.
   
2. Similarly most teams felt that they had access to management. In some cases this was active support that benefited and strengthened the team, in others it was acknowledged as more passive support. However, even teams that were not completely happy with management support did see that there were actions that they could take to improve this by ensuring good documentation and presentation of proposals to be started and projects underway.
   
3. Teams appreciated the benefits of external networks in learning about new technologies, approaches to problem solving, and general information. Some team members specifically identified building such networks as a goal for them in becoming involved in the Target Zero programme. The people we spoke to during these evaluations liked that external networks that are provided during the Target Zero programme. However, it appeared that this networking was stronger during the time companies were in the programme than after they had left. It may be that this aspect of the Target Zero programme can be strengthened. There is also a need for team members to be supported in identifying and developing their own individual networks.

4.4.4 Does the team have useful meetings with a clear identification of tasks?

With the exception of one team, all thought that their meetings were useful. However, this should also be seen against the fact that teams have different capacities for undertaking tasks and catalysing wider change (see Appendix II). In the main, teams' response in this area related to the undertaking of specific on-the-ground projects. Accordingly teams could benefit from training to strengthen their skills in such areas as creating a learning environment at meetings, and broadening their efforts to catalyse wider change.

4.4.5 Does the team have effective ways of managing conflict?

Overall teams were happy that they had experienced little, or no, conflict. This in itself points to the fact that they probably are managing it. Overt conflict is usually a point that is reached after a history of misunderstandings.

However, some members also noted that projects to date had not really challenged company staff to change. Some defensiveness by other staff to the Target Zero work was also noted by some of the teams. It was recognised that if this is necessary, the teams will need to think carefully about how to do this. Good and open lines of communication were noted as the key to minimising conflict.

In this regard one team felt that it is important that changes in the plant and work in regard to monitoring, etc. be undertaken by staff or tradespeople that are known: This is a non-threatening way of working with other staff members in their own workplaces.

4.4.6 Is the team is functioning in a way that people freely express ideas and share opinions?

Teams were all happy about this and some members pointed out that their involvement in the Target Zero forum is a vehicle to share and talk about their ideas. Teams also went further than this and expressed a desire to get ideas and feedback from people outside the team. One team commented that they try to ask people closest to the process to help think of a solution, as this will often be a better one than you can come up with by yourself.

4.4.7 Does the team stay motivated?

With the exception of one team (which comes from a company where environmental concerns are given a high priority by management, and there is a lot of staff capacity in terms of team process and learning skills) the need for teams to work harder on staying motivated was unanimously identified as a high priority area.

Teams were very appreciative of the consultants' role in this area - providing some external motivation, setting meetings dates, organising tasks, (even providing homework!) etc. One team that joined the programme when consultants were not used commented that they thought they would have been more effective if they had access to a consultant. A number of comments were also made by team members that they believed that many teams folded when consultants left.

Team members were also aware that the need to achieve and document successes is a strong motivational mechanism. This leads to internal acknowledgement of success within the team, and also opens up the possibility for the team to receive acknowledgement from other staff and management (see 4.2.4 above). Equally, it was noted that celebrating successes and sharing achievements contributes towards developing a positive attitude among other staff in the company in the Target Zero programme and what it is set up to do.

One team commented that the diversity of the team -- that everyone came from different departments -- helped with motivation in this area. Even if something hadn't worked in one area or a team member hadn't been able to get something done -- someone else always had a success.

Another team member expressed frustration at how slow things have taken to get fixed. Often these are small things that would have made quite a difference but which are put to one side if favour of the big projects.

The key to improvement in this area is to ensure the leadership aspects referred to in 4.4.1 above are met, and that successes are well documented and acknowledged. This is an area where consultants have a valuable role to play and in particular, their presence lends a higher priority to ensuring that staff take time to attend meetings, etc. by virtue of their being from outside the company. Equally though, attention must be paid to ensuring that, in those cases where teams have to operate without a consultant they have the skills and support to undertake and fulfil these roles internally.

Back to contents  

5. Evaluators' General Comments

As we went about designing an approach to learn more about how the effectiveness of teams can be improved to help reduce resource use by commercial organisations, we were conscious that we wanted to work with teams, rather than just ask them questions. Accordingly we designed a formative and participatory evaluation process to do this. This was intended to guide their thinking about the key things that make teams work, whether or not they were doing them, and whether what they are doing could be improved. Thus the evaluation was not designed to rate how effective each team has been, rather it was to help each of the groups taking part critically reflect on what has been effective for them and what they would like to do differently in the future.

The strength of this process is that generic issues of team activity were covered in a way that was unique and specifically relevant to each team. The process caused participants to reflect upon their own performance, rather than study a list of 'how- to's' that might seem self evident and would be unlikely to be retained. The process also worked with the goals the teams had set for themselves rather than those assumed to be theirs because of the overall structure of the Target Zero programme.

The evaluation process itself generally received positive feedback from the participating teams, two of whom cited it as a training opportunity that got people thinking. During the second round of evaluations we came across specific examples of people having changed what they were doing as a result of thinking through a problem uncovered by the evaluation process.

However, it was not possible in all cases to force teams and participants to be reflective. There were certainly instances where our assessment would be that the team gained little from the evaluation and did not pause to reflect on what they could learn from the experience or on areas that they could perform better. The limits of this evaluation process, and its failure to engage with some participants, is something that the evaluators are now reflecting on!

Back to contents  

6. Summary of Key Points

• Teams and team members have a number of reasons for their willing involvement in the Target Zero programme, beyond the overt goals of helping their companies achieve cost-savings and waste minimisation. While 'cost savings' might be the most attractive drawcard for inducing company management to take part in the programme, participating staff are less likely to be enthused by this goal alone. These additional goals can be used in combination to promote the programme and gain more involvement and commitment by participants. In particular teams and team members are interested in the professional development opportunities that their involvement in Target Zero can bring, as well as the potential contribution they can make towards changing company culture or 'making a difference'.
• Teams appreciate the need to set out clear actionable steps and measure and document progress along the way in respect of specific on-the-ground projects. However, they have generally not done this in regard to either team performance or the less tangible goals they have set themselves (e.g., professional development and culture change). If teams are to continue beyond the Target Zero programme and if they are to develop independent and interdependent characteristics (see Appendix I), it is important to encourage the awareness and monitoring of aspects of team process as well as achievement of tasks.
• Getting active support from top management for Target Zero activities is important. However, where management support is passive rather than active, there are ways of working from the team up to secure this. Few teams have been proactive in this area.
• Related to the above point, getting Target Zero activities acknowledged formally in job descriptions or through ongoing programmes of quality assurance or environmental management establishes this as a company work priority. This in turn influences the provision of adequate time for staff to undertake waste minimisation work.
• Good leadership skills (time management, facilitation, motivating, etc.) are essential for good team performance. Often, especially in the beginning phase of a Target Zero team, these aspects are provided by the external consultant. Teams need to be resourced (either internally or externally) if they are to continue as an ongoing unit.
• Motivation is an important success factor, and one that the majority of teams have identified as a problem. A number of areas for improvement were identified, some of which could be done by teams and some by the CCC Target Zero group.

Team-based areas for improvement include: providing recognition and responsibility for this area through team leadership, ensuring good measurement of achievements towards goals (including those goals related to professional development and culture change), thinking laterally about what makes the experience enjoyable for participants, and taking care to reward both big and small successes .

CCC Target Zero team areas for improvement include: recognising and publicising a larger range of successes to include the full range of goals, more publicity in general to recognise the success of the Target Zero programme including posters, etc., and offering more opportunities for external networking to provide both access to ideas and peer support.

• There is a need to help teams develop to a stage where they are much more aware of the value of the group itself and its capabilities to problem solve. Individually, members will be characterised by the development of capacities that expect change, are more dynamic, and capable of developing responses to help shape a desired future. They will continually look to ways of strengthening themselves as a team, and be quite critically evaluative of their own abilities. Groups in this phase will be capable of promoting the spread of appropriate technologies and ideas to other groups, and of initiating new groups themselves.
• If Target Zero is interested in changing attitudes, there need to be links for participants to work on waste reduction not only in the workplace but within their domestic situation (ordinary citizens tend to make this connection more readily than organisational structures!) by associating with supporting initiatives on the domestic front.

Back to contents  

7. Recommendations

Teams vary enormously in the context within which they operate, consequently no 'one-size-fits-all' approach can be recommended for improving their effectiveness. However, useful principles would be:

• To strive for a balance between 'task' and 'process' and to encourage active awareness and monitoring of the less tangiable goals associated with process issues.
• The use of an approach that encourages critical reflection and review of progress is potentially of greater value than generic tools about team-work.
• Networking (external and internal to the home company of the team) is essential to team development and to the influence of the team throughout the organisation. Networking and building relationships can be straightforward for some, but many of the participants in the evaluation needed active encouragement to step outside the boundaries of the established connections.

Back to contents  

8. References

Allen, W. & Kilvington, M.2001. Building effective teams for resource use efficiency. Landcare Research report LC0001/60

Pretty, J. & Frank, B.R. 2000. Participation and social capital formation in natural resource management: Achievements and lessons. In Proceedings: International Landcare 2000. 2-5 March, Melbourne, Australia Pp.178-187.

Back to contents  

9. Acknowledgements

This research was jointly funded through the Christchurch City Council's Target Zero Programme and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST).

We would like to thank Karen Durham and Chris Byrch of the Christchurch City Council Waste management unit for supporting this work and providing administrative support and setting up our contacts. We would also like to thank the following consultants of the Target Zero programme for taking part in the dialogue that helped to shape our understanding of events - Martin Ward, Chris Wilson, John Nederpelt, Mark Watson, Scott Wilson, Helene Mautener and Di Menzies.

Importantly we would also like to thank the following companies and the individuals within the Target Zero teams for taking part in the evaluation process: AEP Flexipac, Canterbury Laundry Service, The Christchurch Star, General Cables Ltd, Reflex Products, Ravensdown Fertiliser Co., Tait Electronics Ltd., Quality Bakers, GL Bowron & Co. Ltd

Back to contents

¹ The formatting in this document has been amended to fit that of this website. Some sections have been omitted to minimise duplication, and the appendices have also been omitted. Thanks to the Christchurch City Council's Target Zero Programme for permission to reproduce this report here.