Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Project Plan .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Milestones ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Layout ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Premise ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Core Conflict .................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Tension ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Turning Point ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Project Flow ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Resolution ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Proposed Knowledge Pyramid ................................................................................................................................. 13

Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Cost-Benefit Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Risk Management Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Proposed Team Structure .................................................................................................................................................. 17

Team Structure Visual ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Stakeholder Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

Roles and Responsibilies .................................................................................................................................................... 22

Myers-Briggs Assessments ................................................................................................................................................ 23

Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Department of Revenue-Auditing ................................................................................................................................ 24

Public Accounting Firm ................................................................................................................................................. 27

Industry ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Research ............................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Analysis of Group Processes and Findings ......................................................................................................................... 35

Associated Research .......................................................................................................................................................... 55

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary

In an ever-changing world of tax law, multi-state regulation, technological revolution, organizational

management, and general business trends, the State of Colorado’s Field Auditing Division of the Department

of Revenue (DOR) has maintained an organizational structure that may have been acceptable in the past, but

is now problematic. Research conducted into this project shows industry best practices for communication,

knowledge sharing, and technology use from both public auditing firms and the companies the DOR will

audit. By understanding the limitations to communication inherent to the existing structure, and then

providing industry best practices as a guide, we believe that the DOR can make dramatic improvements to

efficiency, accountability, and ultimately bring in more income through compliance.

The DOR now finds itself needing to catch-up to modern audit practices. In order to catch-up, a new team-

based audit structure is the key. Teaming senior and junior auditors, especially on large, complex audits

provides an opportunity for knowledge transfer, improved efficiency, genuine accountability, and a long-

term approach to maintaining high performance within the organization. It is evident that the team-based

approach is a shift from the current culture at the DOR, which is dependent on highly skilled, yet isolated

individuals. However, without the team based approach, it is likely that most efforts to improve the

organization will fail as each individual will decide whether or not to adapt to the new processes.

It appears that the implementation of new software and communication tools could conflict to the current

culture of individualism. With a team-based structure in place, adoption of new technology, including the

Gentax software, becomes more likely, less disruptive, and ultimately less painful. Adoption will become

more likely because upward knowledge transfer will begin with junior auditors. IT and legislative mandates

could limit implementation of a dramatic overhaul of the organization; however, by deploying the team-

based approach, the DOR becomes a more dynamic organization where improvements are fostered

internally. The costs and benefits of the team based approach show lower overall cost and improved long-

term functionality of the organization. But even with evidence to support the proposition, there will be

risks. We support the conclusion that the risks inherent within the status quo are too great to not adopt the

team-based approach.

In the final analysis, the DOR has a choice: adopt industry best practices and improve or maintain the status

quo. The culture of individualism will limit the success of the DOR. We recommend the organization

embrace a team-based environment that encourages collaboration and facilitates a highly efficient learning

organization.

3 | P a g e

Project Plan

Objectives, Deliverables, Milestones, WBS, Scope Time Box

Objectives:

Within one year after acceptance of project, 25% of Level I and Out-of-State audits are completed

with team approach. (Senior and Junior Auditor pairing)

Within two years of acceptance, all Out-of-State and Level I audits are completed with the team

based model.

Convince all employees of the effectiveness of teamwork and collaboration.

Senior auditors effectively communicate the teamwork change to all employees and make it a high

priority. Effective communication will be achieved with strong downward knowledge sharing.

Once acceptance occurs, the DOR start communications with Gentax or other software companies to

implement knowledge transfer and remote access systems.

4 | P a g e

Scope As a group, we are focusing on the organizational structure and culture of the DOR. It is possible, that

continuing to work in isolation could limit the benefits of our proposal. Also, we are focusing on the

beginning shift in culture which would provide the greatest value. The following is a list of in and out of

scope items:

In-Scope:

Modify employee assignments to begin team actions.

Provide beginning techniques for a knowledge management system.

Consult the DOR with benefits and risks associated with teams or lack thereof.

Suggest different means of communication and why they would be more effective.

Reinforce the importance of a knowledge management system within a team structure. Knowledge

Management is defined as “a range of practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent,

distribute and enable adoption of insights and experiences. Such insights and experiences comprise

knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes or practice,”

according to Wikipedia.

Out-of-Scope:

Help the DOR with incentive programs designed around facilitating teamwork and collaboration.

Provide in depth knowledge of technical questions pertaining to a knowledge management system or

wiki systems.

Suggest an entire new management structure.

Actually setting up events to foster communication with the DOR.

5 | P a g e

Milestones

6 | P a g e

7 | P a g e

Project Layout

Individualism versus Teamwork

Premise

Improve audit efficiency and accountability within the Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) Field

Auditing Division by implementing industry best practices for knowledge management and communication.

Core Conflict

The DOR has the opportunity to identify industry best practices and adopt them leading to a more efficient

audit process. In addition, a culture of individualism hampers collaboration, knowledge sharing and

communication, ultimately limiting employee performance.

The department’s culture has been self-described as individual, self-sufficient, and self-directed (per in class

client meeting). This individualism, however, creates a unique work environment of silos that effectively

limits the amount of knowledge sharing and communication between peers and senior and junior audit

associates. This “knowledge silo” driven environment limits efficiency within the department (Hansen &

Stoner). Through interviews with employees of the DOR we perceive they have an opportunity to take

advantage of a team-based environment. The essence of our proposal is to shift to a team-based model

from the knowledge silo model in order to transfer knowledge vertically in both directions and improve the

overall effectiveness of the Department. Of course the employees of the DOR enjoy their freedom and

flexibility, however, it must be noted that in order for the organization to flourish as a whole, there must be

collaborative effort. We have identified the core conflict of our project to be the individual versus team

based environment.

8 | P a g e

Tension

In the ever-changing area of taxes, auditing, and information sharing, maintaining the status quo poses risks

for the DOR and the state of Colorado in general. By consulting the Stakeholder Analysis section, it is our

belief that Colorado taxpayers could experience the elimination of key services provided by the State as a

result of missing tax revenue. Not only does this present the real possibility that Colorado taxpayers could

suffer a living standard decrease, but also the auditors themselves are left isolated and out of the loop in

some audit situations (Interview –DOR). When an auditor finds themselves in an unfamiliar situation, they

may already be out of the office and isolated. For instance, the DOR does not have remote access to work

email or DOR databases of any kind (Interview –DOR). In the past, employees have even forwarded

confidential client information to an unencrypted public email account in efforts to stay connected to the

office. By disconnecting the auditors from the home office, the DOR has effectively sent them out without

effective communication and knowledge databases to manage audits on their own.

The status quo is deeply ingrained into the culture of the department. Some senior auditors have worked

independently for the better part of their careers and know how to navigate this isolation. In these cases,

the auditor may prefer this process and may be averse to changing their tried and true ways of performing

audits. Senior auditors are the heart of the organization and possess an immense amount of knowledge.

But the current structure limits collaboration, communication, and knowledge sharing, leading to the

creation of what is termed knowledge silos. Knowledge silos maintain separation and limit the transfer of

knowledge to younger auditors, forcing them to find information on their own or by using paper

repositories.

When an auditor is at a client site, not only is the auditor isolated, but they may also face a daunting amount

of work. By comparison, public accounting firms send teams of senior and junior staff, from four to several

dozen auditors depending on the size and scope of the audit. (Interview-Public Accounting Firm) Simply for

comparison purposes, the State of Colorado may send one or two senior auditors only. Budget constraints

imposed by the State will limit the number of auditors that can be sent into the field (Interview –DOR).

However, we feel that the culture of isolation and selection of only senior staff for the most complex out-of-

state assignments is a hurdle that should be overcome. Compounding this problem, the most seasoned,

highly trained, and most valuable auditors are out-of-sight and out-of-mind for significant amounts of time

every year. Perhaps a more significant problem is a lack of contingency plan for the DOR. According to our

interviews with public accounting firm partners, the development of young talent is essential to their long-

term success (Interview-Public Accounting Firm). With the most knowledgeable employees out of the office

on audits, a disconnect arises between senior and junior employees. The organizational alignment of a

corporation can greatly affect the knowledge sharing within the firm leading to stronger team members

9 | P a g e

(E-Business Risks: Organizational Alignment). The silo-based culture restricts the amount of knowledge

sharing between senior and junior auditors, sequentially limiting efficient knowledge growth. Before the

senior employees leave for retirement, knowledge management must be considered so expert employees

do not retire without sharing their experiences (Gary).

All of the reasons discussed create an inopportune situation resulting in lost knowledge and revenue.

Turning Point

There is light at the end of the tunnel. The DOR faces a correctible problem that can be solved with a change

in culture. Individualism limits the success of many corporations around the world and the DOR is no

exception. The Department should embrace a team-based environment that encourages collaboration and

facilitates teamwork.

As a result of research conducted, we have found numerous examples within audit firms and industry of

successful teams excelling and believe the DOR can benefit from lessons already learned.

The structure of audit teams for major public accounting firms should be considered as an alternative to the

status quo. Public accounting firms design their teams in similar ways in order to efficiently complete the

tasks and to expose young talent to new knowledge. Not only do the new hires learn an incredible amount

with teams, but they also are directly connected to all levels of employees. This communication structure is

called “vertical knowledge management” by many in academia. One must consider that the knowledge

transfer does not solely travel from experienced employees to new hires. Younger employees often have

high levels of information technology knowledge and innovative ideas which benefits everyone in the

company. To supplement the vertical knowledge management, large accounting firms utilize “horizontal

knowledge management” as well (Gillette). At every level of management, different employees have

distinct experiences that can be shared for the benefit of all. Horizontal and vertical knowledge

management fosters a team-based environment that enhances learning.

10 | P a g e

Project Flow

11 | P a g e

Resolution

The foundation of this proposal is cultural acceptance. In order to help make the DOR a more efficient,

collaborative, and an accountable organization, start with the strengths of the organization and build upon

those. The strengths are easily seen: intelligent staff, dedicated employees, self-directed management,

knowledge of tax, audit, and systems and procedures. These strengths are powerful tools to ensuring a

successful implementation. The reason for this: an organization of sharp self-starters holding themselves

accountable for the success of the implementation.

From this foundation, a team based organization can succeed. Initially, the DOR needs to actively encourage

teamwork by modifying its employee deployments. Instead of sending two senior auditors to large and out-

of-state audits, the DOR should consider sending a team comprised of RA IIIs and more junior auditors.

Collaboration and camaraderie gained through teamwork will facilitate knowledge sharing and increase

employee efficiency. In addition, knowledge transfer both upward and downward is possible in this

structure (Gillette).

Our proposal is to initiate the first teams on Level 1 audits within the first year. Up to 25% of all Level 1

audits could be based on the team approach outlined in the Team Structure section of this report. By year 2,

we propose that all Level 1 audits be assigned with the team structure in place. Important to note, in the

current economic environment we are aware of the increased cost of additional travel. We believe that this

increased cost will be offset by the knowledge gained by all parties and the efficiency of quicker audit

resolution, and increased compliance by taxpayers. When interviewing the DOR, it was mentioned that a

mentoring program had been beneficial in the past. Benefits from the mentoring program, knowledge

transfer and communication, can be easily replicated with this team based approach.

After the team structure is adopted and implemented, the DOR should pursue the use of modern technology

within the team structure to facilitate knowledge transfer between all locations and employees. The first

step of this process is to add a remote network to the DOR’s assets in order to better connect all employees.

Many companies have effectively used knowledge intranets to disperse information. We are not proposing

a massive online knowledge management project. Rather, we are recommending a knowledge resource

database as a progressive addition, indexed by tax topics, specific types of tax (sales and use, sales tax),

different state topics (especially where Level 1 audits occur), specific tax issues by industry (i.e. car

dealerships), and specific tax issues by taxpayer (private letter rulings). An index with an intuitive hierarchy

would facilitate knowledge sharing among the department. This index could be made available to all

auditors based on access controls established by the department.

12 | P a g e

In order to make a knowledge management system successful, it must be widely used and updated. It is

possible that some senior employees could resist this change due to the residual individualistic culture at the

DOR. To combat a resistance, an incentive structure should be implemented to encourage the use of the

system.

Finally, the DOR should not solely rely on a computer-based knowledge management system. Many

companies find it more effective to saturate the employees with new knowledge from many sources instead

of simply relying on one method of communication. (Gillette). Many organizations have had success by

identifying a “Policy Coordinator” to lead the transition (Hansen & Stoner). A policy coordinator works with

management and all levels of the organization to ensure consistency and all the project elements needed for

implementation.

In the end, we believe this organization has the right people and processes in place to implement our

proposal. Built upon a foundation and culture dedicated to knowledge management, the launch of teams,

and the creation of knowledge management resources for all auditors, the DOR will be a more efficient and

effective organization. Improved compliance of the Colorado tax requirements will result from this these

recommendations.

13 | P a g e

Proposed Knowledge Pyramid

*Modified Big Four structure based on interview (pg.28)

14 | P a g e

Assumptions

There is a self-directed culture.

The Department has subject matter experts that cannot easily share their knowledge across the

organization.

There is urgency for increased compliance creating incentive to change.

There is an opportunity to improve upon the status quo that will lead to increased compliance, better

information sharing, and retention of talented people.

15 | P a g e

Cost-Benefit Analysis

16 | P a g e

Risk Management Plan

17 | P a g e

Proposed Team Structure

The proposed team structure is largely taken from public accounting models and industry best practices.

Collaboration and teaming are now the norm. A team based approach will most effectively manage time,

ensure collaboration, and transfer information among the team in order to complete audits as efficiently

and accurately as possible.

In general, a team has a strategic lead: the RA III. The RA III is responsible for selecting the audits.

Communication with the audit candidate is initiated immediately. This helps to define the scope of work,

including size and expertise needed for the team. Once the audit is selected for field work, the RA III

assembles the team. The RA III maintains primary communication with the audit candidate and shares this

information with the team. In addition, prior work papers, a review of pertinent data, and review of any

tax/state/industry data is initiated by the RA III. From there, a concise and efficient list of deliverables can

be identified for the field audit and the team can be scheduled. When the field work begins, the RA III will

lead the kick-off meetings at the candidate site and maintain communication with the candidate and the

audit team. Daily or more frequent updates are delivered to the RA III to disseminate among the team and

candidate. The RA III is the lead or partner on the audit but no longer needs to stay onsite. Knowledge, time

management, communication, leadership, and mentoring are key attributes for this team member.

The RA II leads the audit field work under the direction of the RA III. The RA II is responsible for completing

workpapers, leading initial onsite audit interviews, and liaison for the entire team. This auditor has their

finger on the pulse at the candidate’s site and ensures work is completed. This employee rolls up their

sleeves, solves problems, and gets the work done.

Most of the auditing workload falls to the junior staff members, RA I and RA Interns. The onsite time

commitment of the staff auditors (RA Interns, RA I) will be much more then that of the senior auditors (RA

III). For example, during a field audit, the staff (RA I) employees will be conducting the actual on-site audit

the entire time while the RA III will only be on-site a fraction of the time. Learning auditing and

understanding the DOR Field Auditing processes will be done real-time in the field with support and

mentoring from the RA II and RA III.

The RA III has responsibility for numerous audits. The time commitment of the RA III’s will mostly be in the

planning stage to assess where the clients compliance errors most likely occurred and course of action to

take. After a plan is developed and handed off to the RA II, the RA II completes most of the work in the field

18 | P a g e

with the RA I’s. The RA II will be the on-site manager for the audit and is responsible for the audit

deliverables. In addition, the RA II serves as the onsite mentor to the less experienced staff and is expected

to help the team where needed. Daily communication among the team is essential to keep the project on

task and on time.

This team structure has been in place for years in the public accounting world with success. With the

adoption of this team model, the DOR will reap the benefits of a more collaborative environment. The DOR

should begin testing this model on a small number of Level 1 and Out-of-State audits with gradual

implementation until all audits are conducted in teams.

The following page shows a team structure that will best match the DOR’s needs.

19 | P a g e

Team Structure Visual

20 | P a g e

Stakeholder Analysis

21 | P a g e

22 | P a g e

Roles and Responsibilies

23 | P a g e

Myers-Briggs Assessments

Natalie Bott

ENFJ

Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of

others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill their potential. May act as catalysts for

individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group,

and provide inspiring leadership.

Derek Cozzens

ENFP

Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and

information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation

from others, and readily give appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability

to improvise and their verbal fluency.

Thomas Fitz

ENTJ

Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies,

develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long-term planning

and goal setting. Usually well informed, well read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to

others. Forceful in presenting their ideas.

Isabelle Pearson

ESFJ

Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with

determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal,

follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it.

Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute.

24 | P a g e

Interviews

Department of Revenue-Auditing Phone Interview Tammy L. Sorenson

The project is a review and analysis of the Colorado Department of Revenue's Field Auditing Division. In the report, we hope to present best practices from specific auditing firms. It is because of your firm’s reputation for excellence in field auditing that I have contacted you. We want to benchmark best practices in communication, especially in regards to keeping field auditors current (and auditors at the home office as well). Below are three questions that hopefully can be easily answered and without divulging any proprietary or sensitive information.

If you have additional suggestions for readings or other contacts, your guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Derek Cozzens Accounting Student CU Boulder Conversation with a RA III Auditor for DOR Field Auditing Division, Dated 9/25/09

Does your firm intentionally pair senior auditors with newer or junior auditors? A mentoring program was originally established under the direction of a previous Chief Auditor which was

the closest thing to teams at the DOR. The program is no longer being used. The purpose of the program

was to mentor and provide information for new staff with an experienced auditor. The program paired up

mid level RA IIs with RA Interns and RA Is. Initially the mentoring meetings occurred regularly. As the

meetings became less frequent, the former chief auditor mandated meetings quarterly. There was no

teaming on audit. The mentor became the “Go To” person for that new auditor for processing, tax, and

other technical issues relating to the job, but again not for teaming on audits. A written report was required

quarterly to the chief auditor to describe the mentoring process. Mentoring program ended when that chief

auditor left.

25 | P a g e

Assist by RA I and RA II were only in state. If there is any teaming, it would be in-state and not overly

complex audits. Assigning the team for an in state audit boils down to who resides in the area, who gets

along with whom, and who is available. In state audits may include 2-4 assists by RA I and RA II.

Path for promotions from RA I, RA II, and RA III is dependent on years of service. It is assumed that the

junior RA levels will gain experience to test for and become RA IIIs by assisting on in state or small scale

audits. Thus, the 5 years at a certain RA level is to ensure that an RA I or RA II has covered sufficient audits

to gain the experience to lead out-of-state or Level 1 audit and therefore qualify for a promotion.

Path for promotions and career development are not state mandated. However, the RA level and the

number or auditors per RA level is state mandated. To put this a different way, the 5 years at RA II before

testing for RA III came about by internal survey among existing FA agents. For a real go-getter auditor, the

years of service at the RA level would be enforced internally within the FA division.

How are field auditors kept "in the loop" when they are out in the field for extended periods of time? Specifically, does the home/regional office have a process to communicate with them on a regular basis (ex. weekly conference calls, video teleconferencing, newsletter, blogs, etc.)? Out of state audits are only led by RA IIIs, no more than two RA III auditors, never with an RA II or RA I. The

RA IIIs are the most experienced auditors and they pretty much are left to their own to conduct the audit,

work out the resolution, and then move on to the next audit. There is no communication or meetings pre-

audit, mid audit, or post audit. Sharing information outside of the two auditors in only communicated when

someone has a question and takes it upon themselves to initiate the call. Industry, specific tax issues, or

state specific information is understood and kept by the two auditors who went out of state.

What about new technology, eRooms, Wikis, online collaboration, and document sharing:

The level of technological sophistication in the department is low. Texting on cell phones is used by FAs to

communicate remotely. When an FA is out of state, that FA cannot access email. IT services limits email or

access to any other state systems. The reason for this is security and confidentiality. Security was designed

to protect the DOR from outside infiltration so no access is allowed outside home office. The reasons for

this include a concern for confidentiality because of taxpayer information. FAs used to forward company

delivered emails to their personal emails that they would then access on the road. That practice has now

been disallowed, citing confidentiality.

There are major obstacles to implementing any online collaboration system. In addition to the limited

amount of access and communication outside the office, new collaboration technology is simply not

26 | P a g e

understood. Electronic audit rooms are being tested on a limited basis at the central offices as is out of state

connectivity. It is unclear if Field Audit will find the system useful.

Internet searching is used for audit selection. But as for other technology, IT services limits what is available.

Newer technology is better understood and used by younger staff, to the limits imposed by IT services.

Younger staff currently uses these technologies with each other, as there is a gap in acceptance, use, and

understanding between younger staff and more seasoned staff.

How does your firm keep field auditors apprised of new tax law, accounting, or other regulatory changes? An annual meeting is held with a representative from the state to apprise the division of new tax law or

legislative changes. In addition, there are payday meetings held within the Division every payday. The

newsletter is not used to disseminate new tax law changes and interpretation, rather, it may mention an

area of consideration it the topics section. Other meetings or information sharing are the result of personal

initiative from each individual. Continuing Education is a part of the job, but it is unclear if there is a specific

CE program dealing with tax or regulatory issues as opposed to management topics like sexual harassment

policy. A central repository for communication, training, and tax changes is mostly paper driven and is based

and filed within the normal audit work papers as opposed to a topics database.

27 | P a g e

Public Accounting Firm Email and Response

The project is a review and analysis of the Colorado Department of Revenue's Field Auditing Division. In the report, we hope to present best practices from specific auditing firms. It is because of your firm’s reputation for excellence in field auditing that I have contacted you. We want to benchmark best practices in communication, especially in regards to keeping field auditors current (and auditors at the home office as well). Below are three questions that hopefully can be easily answered and without divulging any proprietary or sensitive information.

If you have additional suggestions for readings or other contacts, your guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Derek Cozzens Accounting Student CU Boulder

Conversation with a Partner in Denver Audit Firm, Dated 9/23/09

1) Does your firm intentionally pair senior auditors with newer or junior auditors? The key to successful communication for the field auditors lies with the structure of the engagement teams. Engagement teams are virtual teams, in that they are not all co-located in the same office nor are they all specialized in one field of expertise. The engagement team includes senior staff, from a varied cross-section of industries, and at various locations in numerous cities in the US. Each engagement team is created to ensure a seamless flow of communication and to ensure timely resolution of issues resulting in the audit. The structure in general is organized as follows:

1) Typical large audit includes teams assigned to each audit. a. Partner 14+ years experience b. Manager 5-12 years experience c. Two or more Senior staff 2-5 years experience d. Any additional staff as needed below this level

2) Experienced auditors, with 14+ years of experience are assigned to a client based on industry and initial proximity to the client’s headquarters. As the audit begins, the partner leads the engagement and other auditors are brought in to work with the client at its various locations Partners may not

28 | P a g e

be in the field, but seniors are in the field 3 out of 5 days a week and managers 2 out of 5 days a week.

3) Communication is not specifically based on hierarchy, a staffer can contact a partner directly if necessary and vice versa.

4) Weekly conference calls are held for all people involved on the engagement. 5) Partners and managers have set calls with other managers and senior staff weekly and remain open

for direct calls 24/7 365 days a year.

Engagement Team Communication Flow

Partner

Manager Manager

Senior Senior Senior Senior

Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff

Staff Staff Staff Staff The benefits of this structure goes beyond communication. Other benefits include: knowledge sharing, on-the-job training, and mentoring. Experienced auditors guide the team and work is completed in an efficient, technically solid manner. Teaming creates a streamlined and clear path for career development as well. This is important as younger staff understand what is required of them to succeed in the organization. There are complications with the engagement team structure. This structure requires extended and extensive travel and even when travel is not required, the work requires a significant time commitment. In the Big Four culture, this is understood an expected. Hard work and putting time in often mean long hours and much travel for the first years if an auditor wishes to follow this career path. 2) How are field auditors kept "in the loop" when they are out in the field for extended periods of time? Specifically, does the home/regional office have a process to communicate with them on a regular basis (ex. weekly conference calls, video teleconferencing, newsletter, blogs, etc.)?

29 | P a g e

Weekly email communication from headquarters on the east coast. Reminders of technical issues, SEC or FASB, Tax, or Audit changes including implementation and compliance issues. Quality points like ensuing proper protocol and best practices, including improving efficiency and operational excellence. Talent development and other HR topics like how to develop and mentor the best and the brightest within your staff and also guiding and problem resolution for folks who need encouragement. Trainings available and upcoming offerings intended to keep current as well as personnel issues and non technical trainings. E-rooms are set-up for all groups. E-rooms are a central repository specific to a certain client, certain industry, sharing of all documents, research databases for FASB, SEC, Tax rulings and information. 3) How does your firm keep field auditors apprised of new tax law, accounting, or other regulatory changes? Since tax law and FASB interpretations are issued a various times of the year, an annual, or quarterly update simply would not suffice. So an e-mail is sent out from central offices to all auditors whether in the field or not. This delivers the latest information and expertise to the entire enterprise. In addition to periodic updates, a weekly e-mail is sent out to all auditors: - Again confirming interpretation and processes when new laws are enacted or changed - FASB or SEC issues - Summary of issues and considerations - Link to training related to such - Webcasts for training on technical issues

E-learning is available in a centralized knowledge database. And all auditors, from partner down are required to get technical training. - 120 hours per year for entry level and 60-80 for partners - Live training, classroom setting with up to 30 people at a time. - Regional training in Regional offices for large scale training, case studies, background, break-out sessions

for smaller groups. As mentioned previously, weekly conference calls for all people involved on the engagement as well as the set call between partners, managers and senior auditors weekly. Thank you again. Derek Cozzens

30 | P a g e

Industry Email Response

Conversation with Management at a Denver Based Oil and Gas Company, Dated 9/25/09

Natalie Bott

“Our commitment to corporate responsibility starts with our people, which is why we focus

on attracting and retaining the best and brightest people. It's also why we provide our

employees with challenging and rewarding work opportuni ties. And it's why we have a

variety of programs to recognize them for their experience and reward them for their hard

work.”-The Company

What programs does The Company support to reward employees for their hard work?

We provide employees with highly competitive, results based compensation. The Company also does

surveys to see how competitive their salaries and benefit are in comparison to competing companies. They

also look at the work - Life balance as being an asset to their employees. For example, The Company give

employees every other Friday off. They are able to let employees take these Fridays off by having them work

extra hours during the week. These Fridays motivate employees to work harder during the week and also

lets employees to take a personal day.

Besides the compensation packages, awards can be given for years of service with the company. Also, other

types of awards are free jackets, pens, hats, paper weights for safety. A company can give high performance

achievements, and award special projects to high performing employees. Another way to show employee

appreciation is to simply hand out thank you cards to recognize employee efforts.

How does The Company pursue innovation and encourage employees to bring leadership and passion to

their work which leads directly to the support our operational success?

The Company is always updating their programs and looking for best practices.

They encourage employees to think out of the box and use look backs to

see how it could have been done better. They use the following to figure out ways to reduce waste (i.e.

costs, and time.) Instead of decreasing the number of employees, The Company tries to find innovative ways

to reduce “waste” by trying to identify and improve business functions.

31 | P a g e

1. We use RACI (Responsible Assignment Matrix) diagrams. This is a tool to see what influences are impacting a process or item.

2. The Company also uses Lean and 6 Sigma which they certify their employees as green belts, or blank belts. Lean is waste reduction and 6 Sigma is standard deviation. (Removing the variations in a processes or technology.)

3. They use Value Stream Mapping and TIMWOOD which is the 7 types of waste. 4. They also use ADKAR which assessing your stakeholders on a process. Awareness, Desire, Knowledge,

Ability, Reinforcement

The Company also provides training classes to encourage you to be pro active in your own

growth. Presentation, Excel, PowerPoint classes are offered as well. They also provide classes on how to

be a leader on Lean.

They also mandate employees submit documents to let your supervisor know, how you would like to

improve or move up.

How does your department communicate information? For example, how do they communicate

information about new policies being implemented? How is communication viewed within the company?

What are the best methods of communication have you found to beneficial?

We communicate via e-mail, and organizational announcements. The Company has their own website for

employees to view policies, and there is a link to access personal information such as health care, dental,

retirement packages, etc. We have team meetings, registration notifications, and one on one

communications. Also, The Company presents new policy information in the form of presentations, WebEx,

and conference calling; I think all of the above need to be utilized. In today’s world, employees need to

understand and utilize the technology available in order to communicate business process effectively.

One of the most beneficial communication processes The Company has developed is the New Grad Program.

This program pairs more experienced employees with new grads. This program is designed to mentor and

facilitate information to inexperienced employees. This allows for new grads to easily integrate themselves

into the working world or The Company’s cultural environment. The mentorship program provides a

comfortable environment which allows for new grads to ask questions. The questions can range from

companies policies and processes to accounting questions. Also, the mentor program has stimulated

conversations about generational differences. This has facilitated in the understanding their differences and

allows for information transfer. The more experiences employees learn about today’s society, technology

and ideals. The new grads learn about working hard, and get more experienced knowledge.

32 | P a g e

“We recognize the importance of showing appreciation for our employees beyond our total

compensation programs. We promote a culture of appreciation and recognition by providing

service and safety awards and tools that can be used by all employees to thank others in

simple ways.”-The Company

What types of programs or appreciation tools are used to reward employees?

The Company rewards there employee's by giving them annual bonuses based on a

tier system.

1. This system is based on expected objectives that each employee is required to perform at a minimum and stretches their goals. You are graded at the ended of the year as to whether you met or exceed the expectations. This ranking also includes Third Party feedback where other people within and outside of you group provide feedback on how you perform(ed). The bonus is also based on a percentage of the performance of your business unit, and your division within the company.

2. The Company also gives vacation based on your work life experience, not just how long you have been with the company. So for instance, I have 35 years work experience and my age which qualifies me for 8 weeks of vacation. You would get no work experience and your age is 21. Technically you would qualify for 1 week vacation in normal circumstances, but The Company gives a minimum of two weeks. The Company also requires only 38 hour work weeks with every 1st and 3rd Friday off. The Company also has between 11 and 12 holidays a month.

3. Additionally, The Company pays employees for additional compensations for transportation and computer purchases. They also provide an eco pass at no cost to employee for bus and light rail. They want you to use public transportation. The Company provides Dental and Health insurance at a minimal cost to employee. They also provide snacks, coffee and drinks.

33 | P a g e

Research

December 24, 2007

How to Use Recognition and Incentives to Shape a Risk-Conscious Culture

By Pat Quinn and Ray Hurst, Protiviti

-Provides help when considering incentive programs that must be non-monetary. The DOR must utilize the use of non-monetary compensation programs in order to effectively implement a knowledge management system.

June 9, 2008

Assessing and Developing Internal Auditors’ Skills at Raytheon Co.

By Rick Benzel, KnowledgeLeader contributing writer

-This article focuses on the culture of Raytheon Co,’s internal audit department and how it uses teamwork to enhance efficiency and accountability. In order for the DOR to fully recognize the effects of teamwork, it must consult industry example to see the rights and wrongs of implementation.

January 13, 2003

E-Business risks: Organizational Alignment

Protiviti

-This article focuses on the organization of a business concern and its effect on the competitiveness of the firm as a result. The DOR has a massively ineffective organizational structure that focuses on seniority rather than knowledge. The lessons from this article include information regarding horizontal and vertical knowledge systems.

July/August 2009

All Knowing

By DR. William A Gary

-This article identifies that the baby boomers are leaving the workforce and are taking their knowledge with them. Therefore, William Gary has defined, and developed structures that aid in knowledge transfer that facilitate knowledge sharing. This is done mainly through a mentoring system.

34 | P a g e

June 30, 2008

Effective Communication a Priority for State's Largest Employers

By Becky Gillette

- This article discusses how different large businesses have a hundreds of employees and are still able to communicate information effectively. This article focuses on several businesses such as the University of Mississippi Medical Center. They communicate by using different avenues of communication such as e-mails, podcast, teleconference, internet conferences and announcement on plasma screen.

Summer 2009

A Leaner public sector

By McKinsey

- This article discusses ways to identifies and establish management infrastructures. The article also discusses ways to establish new roles, a policy coordinator within an organization.

August 2009

When citizens are your customers

By McKinsey

- “Optimization techniques using noncontroversial metrics such as customer satisfaction can help government agencies improve their service levels.”

September 2009

How to optimize knowledge sharing in a factory network

By McKinsey

- This article discusses the benefits of knowledge sharing within an organization. Also, the article discusses the different levels of communication and knowledge systems.

2006

Mapping the value of employee collaboration

By McKinsey

- This article discusses “falling communications costs, globalization, and the increasing specialization of knowledge-based work are making collaboration within and among organizations increasingly important

35 | P a g e

Analysis of Group Processes and Findings

Table of Contents Project Development ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

Meeting Minutes and Status Reports ................................................................................................................................ 38

Team Quality Assurance and Change Management Techniques ...................................................................................... 51

DOR Quality Assurance and Change Management Techniques ........................................................................................ 52

Lessons Learned................................................................................................................................................................. 53

36 | P a g e

Project Development

Below is a brief outline to our project development.

Weeks 1 - 5

Time Point Client Provided Documents Tammy In-Class Interview

Project Development

After dividing project materials among group members, we realized the redunency of client papers signaling inefficient communication. As a group, we decided to pursue communication as our topic and developed questions for the DOR.

Each group member provided questions for Tammy communication as the topic. Initial findings focused on a database of experts in specified tax areas. Also, developed plans for different office interaction to boost collaboration.

Weeks 6 and 7 Group Meetings and Client Interviews

Project Development

Initial research about interoffice communication reveals heavy costs that the DOR can't incur. Brainstorming began dealing with low cost ways to increase team communication. Realized that the DOR simply does not have teams. Project shift towards small teams. Conducted industry interviews with Big 4 accounting firms and outside corporations (see sources). Based off of researched, began to consider costs of small team engagements. Consulted with Setera and was reassured that small teams were a cheap and efficient way to boost collaboration. Proposed team structure finalized.

37 | P a g e

Weeks 8 - 12 Continued Group Meetings and Idea Development

Project Development

Scope became problem within team. As team work became our focus, we realized that the audit teams would still be isolated from DOR when on engagements. Began dealing with Knowledge management databases but soon concluded that the DOR would not accept our project because of insufficient funds for a database. Until this point, technology was out of insufficient funds for a database. Until this point, technology was out of scope but with further discussions with group members and industry leaders, it became apparent that this must be included. With discussions with Mr. Marlatt, we decided to merely mention the importance of further KM development.

Weeks 13 - 16 Finalized Project

Project Development

With Scope firmly decided, more research was conducted to solidify our proposal. Began making tweaks to final deliverable to include all research effectively. Editing became most of the priority during this phase.

38 | P a g e

Meeting Minutes and Status Reports

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

8/31/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on Aug 31, 2009 on in the Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

First meeting, no previous minutes.

Open issues

a) Project Questions b) Main Point: Should we focus on the lack of communication within the DOR

c) Question: Need to find out how the DOR communicate when on audits d) Do they have VPN? e) How are the auditors trained?

f) Are there any enforceable rule g) ACTION ITEM FOR ALL: Prepare list of questions for Tammy for review at following

week’s meeting. h) Research communication sets

i) Myers-Briggs results

New business

a) Roles and responsibilities b) Developed Roles and Responsibilities chart

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting at 6 pm.

39 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

09/07/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on September 7, 2009 on in the Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all.

Open issues

1) Client Questions a) Review all questions for client b) Focus of questions was all on topic of communication within the DOR.

2) Research a) Derek found numerous articles from McKinsey, excellent research b) Natalie brought up the idea of interviewing industry professionals and volunteered to do the

interview c) Isabelle set up an online account at teamfireplace@gmail.com for all team correspondence

New business

1) Began to develop our premise. a) Not successful b) Attempted discussion yielded minimal results because it was apparent that, as a group, we did not

have direction quite yet. c) ACTION ITEM: Each member to produce a premise on his or her own to try to see each person’s

project outlook. WILL BE FOCUS OF NEXT MEETING.

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting at 6 pm.

40 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

09/14/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on September 14, 2009 on in the Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all.

Open issues

1) Premise development

a) Reviewed all members’ premises.

i) All directly involved with the development of teamwork and a shift towards a collaborative culture.

(1) Began to focus on wording of development

(2) COMPLETED: PREMISE OF PROJECT

2) Review of Tammy’s answers

a) Revealed a large knowledge gap

i) Thomas brought up idea of knowledge management and will focus his research upon the subject

ii) Derek agrees to interview people at the Big 4 firms

iii) ACTION ITEM: Derek and Natalie will conduct interviews for next week’s meeting and Thomas and Isabelle will continue research dealing with teaming and collaboration

41 | P a g e

3) New business

a) Began the process of core conflict development

i) Isabelle brings up good point: We are dealing with a team versus no team environment

(1) COMPLETED: CORE CONFLICT, INDIVIDUAL VS TEAM

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting at 6:30 pm.

42 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

09/21/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on September 21, 2009 on in the Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all.

Open Items

1) Review of Derek and Natalie’s interview questions

a) A few minor tweaks but very good work

2) Thomas and Isabelle articles of note to be considered

3) Interviews not completed. Perfectly alright, postponed until next meeting

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting at 5:45 pm.

No meeting for 10/28/2009; interviews were completed and the drafts were typed and emailed for group members for review.

43 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

10/05/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on October 5, 2009 on in the Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Review of interviews

a) Excellent interviews reveal teaming across industries. b) Bott’s interview showed how important teaming is inside of her mother’s firm. c) Derek’s Big 4 interview showed same results as Bott’s. Managed to get team structure used by the

Firms New Items 1) Assign deliverable roles

a) Thomas: Write the first draft of the premise – resolution b) Derek: Final draft of his interview. Evaluate DOR risks and cost benefit analysis c) Isabelle: Develop project timeline and formatting of final draft d) Natalie: Collect team research and complete bibliography, prepare final draft of her interview e) ACTION ITEM: COMPLETE ASSIGNED TASKS FOR A MEETING ON 10/10/2009

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting at 5:45 pm.

44 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

10/10/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on October 10, 2009 on in the residence of Isabelle Pearson.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Review of prepared materials

a) Thomas: For the most part, all was accepted i) Changes:

(1) Negative wording (2) Minor sentence errors

b) Derek: changes (1) Added to risks and changed formatting of tables

c) Natalie: (1) Expanded on assumptions

d) Isabelle: (1) Task completed, awaiting final drafts to compile deliverable

New Items 1) Meet on Monday to review changes to give Isabelle enough time to format final draft

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 7 pm.

45 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

10/12/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on October 12, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following persons were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Review of final drafts

a) Team agreed that there is a lack of concrete evidence b) As a group, develop the application of a new team structure to the DOR.

i) Create knowledge pyramid based off of the BIG 4 interview (1) Basically take the model but put it on smaller scale (2) What are the associated costs?

(a) All traveling auditors are paid on RA3 level (b) Discontinue this and give them normal pay

ii) Created the small team structure member roles (1) Push most of the work load onto RA1s and interns

2) Agreed on the completion of drafts a) ACTION ITEM: Natalie and Isabelle would compile everything to turn in b) For the next three weeks, we will focus on research review

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 7 pm.

No meetings for three weeks as rewards for good grade on deliverable!

46 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

11/02/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on November 2, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Review deliverable

a) Most important issue: CITATIONS i) Discussed the importance of citations and assigned Thomas to make citations

b) Began to draft the final presentation 2) CONFLICT: As a group, we began to disagree on the scope of the project and can be summarized by two

viewpoints. Derek’s argument: A knowledge management system can’t be complete without an electronic system to help connect people and store information to be available to users. Isabelle’s argument: While its true a better knowledge management system will involve and electronic database, the cost of a database will distract the DOR from our teamwork proposal. a) This debate continued for most of the meeting. Thomas realized that the discussion was going

nowhere and ended the meeting. 3) Not much accomplished this meeting. We’ll try it again next week

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 5:45 pm.

47 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

11/09/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on November 9, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Scope Issue

a) After repeating the notes from the previous week, Thomas opened up the group to discussions. b) After 15 minutes, the group agreed that it was in our best interest to avoid the topic of technology

and focus on teaming i) NOTE: Derek maintains that a mention of further IT development needs to be made. Thomas

agrees but for the time being, no mention of technology will be made New Items 2) Begin work on slides

a) Began with brainstorming on structure. All agreed that the 7-slide solution should be used. b) Developed each slide as a group. Isabelle will put the final touches on the presentation c) Divided slides up for presentation:

i) Isabelle will open ii) Natalie will introduce the core conflict iii) Isabelle and Natalie: tension iv) Derek: turning point v) Derek and Thomas: Resolution

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 7 pm.

48 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

11/16/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 5pm on November 16, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open Items 1) Presentation

a) Approved of all of Isabelle’s changes b) Practice, practice, practice

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 7 pm.

49 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

12/3/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 3pm on November 3, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open items 1) As a group, re-read entire first deliverable to make changes.

a) Very long process that involve a good deal of bickering b) Inserted citations where needed

2) Re-worked our presentation a) Spent too long with the deliverable and the group lost focus b) Postponed presentation re-work until next meeting

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 6 pm.

50 | P a g e

Team Fireplace Meeting Meetings

12/7/2009

Call to order

Thomas Fitz called to order the regular meeting of Team Fireplace at 2 pm on November 7, 2009 on in Leeds School of Business.

Roll call

Thomas Fitz conducted a roll call. The following were present: All present

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Thomas Fitz recited previous minutes, members approved all. Open items 1) Final review of presentation to tighten up 2) Final review of deliverable

a) ACTION ITEM: Isabelle and Natalie will format final draft to be turned in on December 9, 2009. LAST MEETING: Best team ever!

Adjournment

Thomas Fitz adjourned the meeting 6 pm.

51 | P a g e

Team Quality Assurance and Change Management Techniques

As a team lead, I began the semester assuming my group members were competent and responsible and was never

proved otherwise. That being said, work quality assurance was still a must. Instead of personally reviewing all project

work, I mostly subjected other’s work to group review. For example, at the beginning of the semester, all research

had to be presented to the rest of the group to be approved. Often this worked but problems arose when the amount

of work increased.

On the due date of the first deliverable, it became apparent that the entire group could not find the time to sit down

to read the entire project. Instead, each person drafted their required workload, and then exchanged their writing

with another group member’s. In my view, the best way to approve quality is to have it approved of by the most

people. After all corrections and proof-readings, all final drafts were compiled and formatted then proofread by the

team lead. To help keep everyone’s in order, each member was given a task calendar with personal and group

milestones.

During our first meeting, the team identified ways to engage DOR employees in order to convince them of a

collaborative environment. The following chart demonstrates the group’s change management techniques:

Understand

the DOR

processes

Identify areas

of

improvement

Develop

improvement

ideas

Communicate

improvement

ideas to DOR

employees

Gain approval

from DOR

employees

Easily implement

teams in existing

structure

52 | P a g e

DOR Quality Assurance and Change Management Techniques

Team cooperation and quality interaction is essential for the long-term success of this program. In the objectives

portion of this deliverable, we outlined numerous milestones that must be reached such as 25% of all Level 1 audits

are team-based within the first year. To begin the quality assurance process, one person will be identified as the

Policy Coordinator. According to change techniques identified by Hansen and Stoner, a policy coordinator is

necessary to “ensure consistency in all project elements” (Hansen and Stoner). The policy coordinator will be the

liaison between the actual teams and senior DOR employees. It is critical that the policy coordinator continuously

monitor the effectiveness of teams through interviews with team members, surveys, etc. Additionally, the policy

coordinator must track quantitive audit measures such as audit timelines, and correctly collected tax revenues to

insure the effectiveness of the program.

The policy coordinator is not only important to project quality, but also is essential to change management. Once the

project is adopted, the policy coordinator will select ‘change agents’ throughout the department to help facilitate

teamwork (Stratera). The change agents will effectively monitor the team success from the inside. Frequently,

perhaps once during an engagement sand once at the end, the change agent and policy coordinator will meet to

evaluate the team. Should problems arise within the team structure, the policy coordinator needs to have the power

to alter team format and personnel. According to Hansen and Stoner, the creation of the policy coordinator

legitimizes the team project, and the use of change agents creates contacts throughout all levels of the department.

Please consider the following as the project implementation plan:

aAdopt team-

based audit

approach

Identify policy

coordinatorSelect

change

agents

Implement

first team-

based audits

with change

agents

Evaluate

successes

and fai lures

of teams

Implement

new teams

based on

previous

evaluations

Continuous

evaluation

process

53 | P a g e

Lessons Learned

As a group, we learned many things about our group, its members and ourselves. The following chart was created at

our last meeting when the group members sat down to reflect on the past semester.

Subject Learned Source Professional Application Personal Application

Visio Creation of charts

for deliverables

Ability to visually

communicate project goals

and strategies to team

members, clients, and

superiors

Manage personal goals in

a visual pattern

Information Systems

in the market place

(Gentax)

Client Interviews Apply product knowledge to

help businesses select the

best product for their needs

Awareness of cutting

edge technology for

personal enjoyment

Group Motivation Team interaction Can identify group motivation

techniques in product the

best deliverable

Recognize personal and

acquaintance motivations

for positive use

Research

Techniques

Project Research When given a task, use

effective research techniques

to provide the most accurate

answers

Sift through large

amounts of information

quickly

Client

Communication

Client

Presentations

Calmly and accurately

present solutions to clients

and peers

Confident with speaking

skills in front of people

54 | P a g e

Subject Learned Source Professional Application Personal Application

Group Scheduling Meeting planning Make effective meeting plans

so no time is wasted

Ability to apply time

management skills

towards everyday life

Conflict Resolution Meetings Calmly settle group

member's tempers without

alienating anyone.

Same

Deliverable

composition

Creation of

Deliverables

Now can tell what a thorough

and complete deliverable is

and how it is made

Can distinguish from a

well thought out

deliverable from one that

is not

Produce Project

without defined

terms aka "Thinking

Outside the Box"

Entire project Ability to critically think and

find the most appropriate

problem or resolution

Feel comfortable when no

boundaries are present

55 | P a g e

Associated Research