Most student project teams are too large to approach a problem as a single unit. Breaking up into smaller groups allows for a more efficient division of labor, but it can also create communication problems when each unit’s work needs to be reintegrated into the whole. Here’s a few tips on how to break off into smaller subteams and keep those teams integrated throughout the team’s development.

Most student project teams are too large to act effectively a single unit. Any team with more than about seven people should consider strategies on how to divide their labor effectively so that the team can leverage the benefits of a large number of participants.

Most project teams will decide to establish formal subteams structured around specific tasks or areas of interest. There is not necessarily any best way to do this—indeed, even teams with long histories (e.g., FSAE) have made changes in their sub-team structures.

Faculty advisors and team leaders can help this process by deciding which tasks they think are important and matching these tasks with available human resources. Student team members can also play an active role in this process by declaring their willingness to work on specific teams and technical projects. Leaders can then take their input and make decisions accordingly.

Subteam size is also up for negotiation. In 2000 and 2001, the FSAE team organized in broad groups of five or six. In 2002, leaders decided that these groups were too big and reduced composition to as few as two. Some special project teams were represented by only one person. On the other end of the spectrum, the Solar Decathlon team has large subteams ranging from four to twelve team members, with some having two or three subteam leaders.

Subteam leadership

Team leaders and faculty advisors are well advised to encourage day-to-day administration and planning of subteam activities to be done by subteam leaders and coordinators. Subteam leaders..

• Minimize team-leader overload: By delegating responsibility for subteam planning to subteam leaders, team leaders can focus on broader team goals and objectives.
• Develop structures of responsibility and accountability: By designating particular people subteam leaders, the team establishes a formal structure of accountability. At least in theory, the entire team should know through this structure who is responsible and where the proverbial buck stops.
• Can develop into future team leaders: Subteam leadership can be a good training opportunity for future team leaders. Mistakes that subteam leaders will inevitably make in learning on the job can be contained, and effective subteam leaders can develop the contacts they’ll need to build legitimate leadership authority for future years.

Subteam integration

There are two topics of concern with respect to integration: intrateam (within the team) and interteam (between teams) coordination.

In larger subteams, there may be multiple tasks assigned to individuals or smaller groups. Often, subteams are responsible for a complete subsystem, and these individual tasks and responsibilities need to be integrated. Subteam leaders are instrumental in making sure that tasks are delegated and that individuals and subunits are engaged in realizing their responsibilities. To this end, subteam leaders are encouraged to develop subteam timelines and path dependencies to account and plan for these challenges, especially if subteams are especially large.

Interteam coordination is a complex challenge. In the 2001 FSAE team, subgroups were formally stitched together with liaison members colisted in major interdependent subteams. However, this formal link organization was problematic. Usually, the designated liaison person was not particularly active in either subteam to which he or she was assigned. This made the liaisons  poor representatives to the teams they were supposed to help stitch together.

In moving to smaller teams in 2002, the team decided to drop formal liaison roles and instead appoint people for core tasks. This informal nature of organization proved to be quite effective. There was a still a structure in place to ensure that integration could take place, and the point people, by virtue of being immersed in their particular tasks, were excellent coordinators. Formally, there were no structured links among subteams; informally, the links were stronger than in the previous organizational model.

Team leaders also play an important role in interteam integration. They should coordinate frequently with subteam leaders to make sure that subteams are functioning well and progressing towards their goals. Most large teams find it effective to appoint specific team leaders to manage and coordinate specific technical domains (e.g., engine development, electronics, software development, mechanical systems, energy acquisition, business and administration, etc.).

Cross-functional and ad-hoc teams

Another solution to subteam integration is to deliberately create teams that integrate areas of expertise.

Cross-functional teams bridge two or more areas of expertise by creating new structures with representatives from interested stakeholders. This was effectively done in the 2002 FSAE team to help deal with continued integration issues between engine development and electronics. By declaring electronics and engine teams as one functional unit, this approach forced mechanical and electrical engineers to work collaboratively. Early experiences from the Solar Decathlon team suggest that even more diverse ranges of expertise (e.g., business and engineering, engineering and architecture) can be merged similarly.

One challenge to this is that team dynamics become increasingly important. A wide range of diverse opinions can be difficult to reconcile and can easily separate into warring camps if not managed correctly. Much of this will depend on the nature of the individuals involved; in both the FSAE and Solar Decathlon examples mentioned above, mutual respect for task expertise and a high level of personal affinity proved to be important mediating factors.

It is possible to create a formal team structure based on cross-functional teams. Such teams are referred to as matrix organizations—individuals are assigned to teams based on various considerations (e.g., functional specialty, task expertise, experience, etc.) simultaneously. However, this can be complicated to develop and administer properly, especially in smaller teams where individual team members may get overloaded with responsibilities as representatives of particular considerations So, if there is only one person expert in a domain, he or she may end up advising 26 other groups in a simple 3*3*3 matrix organization.

As a result, cross-functional teams are often most effective in an ad-hoc basis. Ad-hoc teams are set up to resolve particular problems as they arise and are disbanded when the problem is sufficiently addressed. Such teams can include preparation for a team’s competition or completion of complicated design projects.