Franklin Equipment Ltd: Project Team Management Case Study
This case study examines Franklin Equipment, Ltd.'s approach to assembling project teams, evaluating how the company assigns managers based on expertise and availability. It explores the efficiencies and shortcomings of these criteria, particularly when interpersonal compatibility is overlooked. The paper then considers why cohesive teamwork becomes even more critical on international projects such as Project Abu Dhabi, where cultural context, political instability, and virtual coordination amplify the risks of poor team dynamics. Finally, it analyzes the dilemma facing Jobe, whose team members are in open conflict, and recommends bringing in a more experienced HR facilitator to resolve interpersonal disputes and build long-term collaborative capacity.
- Team Assignment Criteria at Franklin Equipment: Evaluates FEL's expertise- and availability-based assignment criteria
- Importance of Team Cohesion on International Projects: Explains why team dynamics matter more on international projects
- The Dilemma Facing Jobe: Describes open conflict and HR failure within the team
- Recommendations to Gatenby: Proposes HR intervention to resolve interpersonal disputes
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances theoretical grounding with practical case analysis, citing Larson & Gray's project management framework and Neeley's research on global teams to support each argument.
- Clearly distinguishes between "hard" technical skills and intangible collaborative qualities, showing awareness that both dimensions matter in team formation.
- Addresses cultural context explicitly, using Neese's high-context/low-context framework to explain why Project Abu Dhabi demands heightened interpersonal sensitivity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: it takes a real-world organizational scenario, identifies the underlying management principles at work, and uses peer-reviewed and practitioner sources to diagnose problems and propose actionable solutions. This technique is central to business and project management coursework at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a structured Q&A format across four questions, each building logically on the last. It opens by evaluating FEL's team selection criteria (Q1), escalates to the higher-stakes international context (Q2), diagnoses the specific conflict Jobe faces (Q3), and closes with a concrete recommendation (Q4). This progression from diagnosis to prescription mirrors standard case study methodology.
Team Assignment Criteria at Franklin Equipment
Franklin Equipment, Ltd. (FEL) assigns managers to project teams based on two primary criteria: the manager's area of expertise and their current availability. Expertise is essential given that the type of work is highly differentiated across project teams and requires very specific skills. Many of these skills are technical "hard" skills rather than interpersonal "soft" skills, demanding years of experience, advanced degrees, and professional certification — qualifications that cannot simply be learned on the job, as is the case with engineering. A manager must have a proven track record to lead a high-profile project effectively. Availability is the second criterion: managers are assigned based on existing commitments to ensure that employees are not overworked or spread too thin. There is little benefit to maintaining a large and capable workforce if it is not deployed to its maximum advantage, and many projects are sufficiently demanding to require a manager's exclusive attention.
The downside of this approach is that managers often have little discretion over whom they assign to their team, which means the ideal match of personalities and skill sets is not always achievable. Although hard skills and technical qualifications are necessary for project work, such skills alone will not realize a project's objectives. There is also a need for intangible qualities — particularly the ability to genuinely collaborate rather than simply compromise. Furthermore, the fact that someone has recently concluded a prior project does not automatically make that person optimal for the next team. Scheduling alone cannot build an effective work team.
Importance of Team Cohesion on International Projects
As noted by Larson and Gray (2014), the financial risks associated with international projects are far greater than those of purely domestic ones. Inevitable bureaucratic obstacles and cultural conflicts regularly arise in cross-border work, making the right personality mix even more critical. Time is frequently at a premium on such projects, and each phase of the work is often critically dependent on the others. Political instability and other unpredictable factors can disrupt the timetable without warning, leaving no margin for delays caused by interpersonal conflict. Every team member must keep the project's agenda — not personal biases or preferences — at the forefront of their decision-making.
Project Abu Dhabi is located within a high-context culture, which means that a sophisticated understanding of the cultural environment is essential for the project to function optimally. As Neese (2016) explains, "Relationships build slowly and depend on trust. Productivity depends on relationships and the group process. An individual's identity is rooted in groups (family, culture, work). Social structure and authority are centralized." This reality demands a level of cultural intelligence that purely technical qualifications do not guarantee.
Compounding this challenge is the state of the existing domestic team, which is already not functioning well together. The human resources coordinator appears to lack the interpersonal intelligence required to recognize this dysfunction and facilitate a more effective response. Once the team begins interfacing with an international project team, existing problems are likely to intensify. International projects also rely heavily on virtual coordination when team members are not working on-site. As Neeley (2015) observes, "When team members come from different countries and functional backgrounds and are working in different locations, communication can rapidly deteriorate, misunderstanding can ensue, and cooperation can degenerate into distrust." When the original project members already have divisive personalities that do not mesh, this dynamic is only exacerbated in a virtual environment, where there are fewer opportunities to use one-on-one social interaction to rebuild trust. Asynchronous email and even real-time messaging lack the reinforcing body language needed to overcome communication barriers.
References
Drexler, J. (n.d.). Franklin Equipment, Ltd. case study.
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2014). Project management: The managerial process (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Neeley, T. (2015). Global teams that work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/10/global-teams-that-work
Neese, B. (2016). Intercultural communication: High- and low-context cultures. Southeastern University. https://online.seu.edu/high-and-low-context-cultures/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.