Moreover, there were a number of smaller issues which augmented the overall failure of the project as a whole. Part of this was a result of the team members not wanting to obscure the fast paced frequency the project was being created in. There was essentially too much of a focus on getting the project done fast, rather than allowing the opportunity for creative differences to become a part of the process in order to mold the idea into a more appropriate direction for the client. Yes, the fast pace strategy completed the project a month ahead of schedule, but it failed the team by rushing an idea that was not properly matched to the client's needs and approved by the client before progressing further towards a final presentation. The client was not properly informed of the decision before the shooting process began. This created a situation where the team could be wasting money in the event that the client is completely unsatisfied with the final product.
There are a number of strategies which could have been implemented here to increase the overall success of the project and to meet the client's vision for the product more appropriately. The first strategy to be examined here would have been to use a "programmed conflict" strategy to implement a devil's advocate within the team in order to criticize and question proposals in order to test their viability against other alternative ideas thought of by the other members of the team. Each team member should have played the devil's advocate role in order to continually test the concept to push it towards new heights and closer towards the ideal representation of the client's vision for the product. This strategy facilitates a healthy competition within teams that pushes individual members to strive towards greater innovation and creativity within their design ideas for the representation of the client's product. Yet, the strategy could create more conflict than what would be healthy, thus also decreasing overall group productivity.
Additionally, the team could have focused on using a leadership strategy to motivate the other member of the group, rather than influencing them to simply go along with one member's ideas. There will be more natural leaders within a team group, and thus they should be able to exhibit their leadership skills. Yet, this process must be within a positive context, thus motivating other members of the team to participate with their own ideas and creativity. If Conner would have practiced this level of leadership, the team would have not been influenced to remain silent in their concerns, but rather to voice them proudly, as they are motivated to succeed within the project as a whole. Still, the fact that Conner was of the same rank as his fellow team members, some might have been uncomfortable with him taking on such a strong leadership role.
Finally, there would be a reduction of the team size as a strategy to increase overall effectiveness. This strategy would reduce the overall size of the team to allow more intimate communication and innovation between a smaller numbers of group members. According to research, the "bystander effect" tends to create more acceptances of group decisions, with less attention paid to individual responsibility as the number of team members within the group increases. This creates a situation where the larger the team, the less individual's will speak up against a team consensus, yet as proven by this case that can be dangerous to the overall progress of the project. Therefore, it would have been beneficial to reduce the size of the team here. Such a strategy would have chosen Conner for his leadership skills, Derek for his experience with the client, and probably at most one other team member. This would have created a situation where Derek would have been more comfortable speaking out against Conner's idea.
The best strategy would have been to reduce the size of the team to facilitate more individual participation within the project. This ultimately proves the most successful of all the three strategies presented here because it does not generate more conflict than necessary, and helps create a situation where individual creativity and innovation can shine brighter than in a more crowded group.