Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThis article summarizes practitioner observations on three research questions. First, the factors that lead to the emergence and persistence of such teams. Second, the repercussions of siloed teams. And third, practical suggestions and recommendations that practitioners can employ to prevent silo formation or address existing silos. This article thus complements recent academic work that has previously explored the formation of silos.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used the input of current team leads from a focus group along with their consulting experience to explore these three research questions. The team lead input and consulting expertise are integrated with academic research on silos.FindingsThe emergence and persistence of silos was mostly attributed to company characteristics (size, growth and stakeholder management) as well as communication inefficiencies (lack of role clarity and ownership within teams), which in turn were impacted by situational variables (pandemic and turnover). The authors noted the effect of team composition effects, team competition and organizational changes (rapid growth and restructuring) as potential contributors to the formation and persistence of silos. The team lead experts and our consulting experiences were congruent with the literature focused on repercussions of silos, from poor information exchanges to inefficiencies, divisions and perceived isolation of teams from the organization. Solutions focused on project organization and documentation as well as the adoption of new decision-making tools and practices, and the creation of more exchange and learning opportunities. The authors added additional options to promote more visibility, appreciation, proactive monitoring within teams and organizational identification initiatives.Originality/valueThe current article adds a pragmatic perspective to silos and how organizations can address these when they become problematic and hinder performance and collaboration.

When there are disasters in our society, whether on an individual, organizational or systemic level, individuals or groups of individuals are often singled out for blame, and commonly it is assumed that the alleged culprits engaged in deliberate misdeeds. But sometimes, at least, these disasters occur not because of deliberate malfeasance, but rather because of complex organizational and systemic circumstances that result in these negative outcomes. Using the Boeing Corporation and its 737 MAX aircraft crashes as an example, this ethical analysis will examine some of the organizational problems that led to changes in management in Boeing and ultimately resulted in the fatal accidents. We will examine ethical blind spots within the company that led to the deadly accidents, and we will study the kinds of circumstances that are particularly acute in organizations such as Boeing, and which contributed to the malfunctions in the 737 MAX and the two resulting crashes. The Boeing 737 MAX example is not a singular case, but rather shares similarities with other engineering disasters such as the Challenger and Columbia explosions, and the ignition switch failures at General Motors each of which seem to have been at least partly the result of organizational shortcomings involving a compromise in commitment to safety. These parallels lead us to conclude that organizational malfeasance poses a serious ethical challenge for engineers and their organizations. We will conclude with some tentative suggestions for avoiding such tragic incidents in the future.

Membership is a team sport. One relies on other departments for new content and offerings. Membership departments are as different as the associations they represent. Structures, responsibilities, and size vary greatly. It is important that one understands how and where he fits in the organization. Benefit creation, benefit delivery, and benefit promotion are not always housed in the same department. Success then depends on the various parties agreeing to a game plan and holding each other accountable. People need to understand their member benefits‐what they are, where they come from, and who promotes them. Addressing the Silo is about pulling people together to talk about mutually beneficial opportunities that help everyone reach his or her goals. People should create feedback loops and share member knowledge via dashboards and other tools so the organization can make informed business decisions.

One area that can easily be overlooked at the planning stages is the strategy for purchasing common components or commodities that feature across a programme or within multiple projects. The benefits of strategically procuring common components and commodities are highlighted and these include securing supply, leveraging of economies of scale by bulk purchasing and reducing maintenance costs. A common component strategy and the steps needed to understand whether one is required, and for what items, are explained in this chapter