SYSTEM DYNAMICS FOR TEAM MANAGEMENT

Submitted by Lee Zong Jing

Department in Industrial and Systems Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering National University of Singapore

AY2010/2011

Summary
A team is a special type of group in which people work interdependently to accomplish a goal. There are many different types of teams that are used by organizations for a variety of purposes. To be more specific, all teams are groups, but not all groups are teams (Hare, 1992) as teams are composed of people with the right balance of skills who cooperate to do a job within a large organization. Teams range in size from two to twenty-five members, and team members tasks are highly interdependence. In this paper, team rather than group is used for research and analysis purpose. Generally, there is a little doubt that a number of factors affect how well a team works, and these factors have been researched and their individual impact on team performance has been examined through various sources of literature review. To understand how these factors interact and their effect on team performance can be examined using a system dynamics modeling methodology, which it was pioneered by Jay Forester in the 1960s. This paper attempts to utilize existing research to first develop a framework and model that explain team performance in general management context. Then, using system dynamics approach (based on the constructed model) to analyze the behavior of the critical factors that influence professional football team performance over time.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Dr. Teo Kwong Meng for his guidance over this project and valuable discussion, in particular for his comments about the causal model of football team management.

Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Section 2: Literature Review....................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Hackman (1983) ............................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992) ............................................................................ 3 2.3. Klimoski and Jones (1995) .............................................................................................. 4 2.4. Rasker, van Vliet, van den Broek, and Essens (2001) ..................................................... 5 Section 3: Framework of Team Performance ............................................................................. 6 3.1. Measures of Team Performance....................................................................................... 6 3.2. An Overview of the Framework Structure ....................................................................... 6 3.3. Conditions of High-performing Team ............................................................................. 8 3.3.1 Leadership Skills ........................................................................................................ 8 3.3.2 Team Competencies ................................................................................................... 8 3.3.3 Team Processes .......................................................................................................... 9 3.3.4 Organizational Context .............................................................................................. 9 Section 4: Model of Team Management ................................................................................... 10 4.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Causal Loop Diagram ..................................................................................................... 11 4.3 An Overview of the Model Structure .............................................................................. 13 Section 5: Model of Football Team Management ..................................................................... 14 5.1 An Overview of the Revised Model Structure ................................................................ 14 5.2 System Dynamics Model ................................................................................................ 18 5.2.1 An Overview of System Dynamics Model Structure ............................................... 18 5.2.2 Model Specification ................................................................................................. 18 5.2.3 Simulation and Validation........................................................................................ 27 5.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 29 5.3.1 Limitation ................................................................................................................. 30 5.3.2 Suggested Improvement ........................................................................................... 31 5.3.3 Future Research........................................................................................................ 31 Section 6: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 32

List of References ...................................................................................................................... 33 Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 35 Appendix A- Driskell, Salas and Hogan (1987) ................................................................... 35 Appendix B- Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995)........................................................................... 35 Appendix C- Shanahan (2001) .............................................................................................. 36 Appendix D- Blendell et al. (2001) ....................................................................................... 36 Appendix E- Description of the Staff Attributes................................................................... 37 Appendix F- System Dynamics Model Structure ................................................................. 38 Appendix G- Detail Attribute Scores for Individual Staff .................................................... 39 Appendix H- Full Premier League Financial Report (season 2010/11) ................................ 43 Appendix I- Desired Performance Goal ................................................................................ 45 Appendix J- Model Variables ............................................................................................... 45

Figure 1 Hackman (1983) ........................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992) ......................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Klimoski and Jones (1995) ........................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Rasker, van Vliet, van den Broek, and Essens (2001) .................................................. 5 Figure 5 Framework of Team Performance ................................................................................ 7 Figure 6 Causal Loop Diagram ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7 Causal Model of Team Management .......................................................................... 13 Figure 8 Causal Model of Football Team Management ........................................................... 14 Figure 9 System Dynamics Model of Football Team Management ......................................... 18

Section 1: Introduction
Today, teams are an important cornerstone of organizations and most organizations rely on teams to fulfil their work and to obtain their goals (Tannenbaum et al., 1996). There are several definitions regarding the structure of a team. For Tannenbaum et al. (1996), a team is a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal/objective/mission, who have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who have a limited life-span of membership. In general, a management teams success is often evaluated in terms of their performance but with little explanation as to what is meant by this term. Performance is a useful term to denote the capability of a team (for either a comparative or isolated assessment) and the processes that the team undertake. Therefore, throughout this paper, our objective is to understand and model the factors that affect team performance. To explore this issue, this paper is organized as follows: 1. A comprehensive review that based on the selected conceptual frameworks and models in team performance is conducted and evaluation is made to extract key factors that affect team performance. 2. Develop a framework and model of team management that based on previous theories and extensive literature reviews. 3. Apply the context of professional football team management into the constructed model and use system dynamics approach to explore the complex interrelationships of the factors that affect team overall performance.

Page | 1

Section 2: Literature Review

The below selected conceptual frameworks were presented chronologically, with the aim to illustrate underlying concepts and issues that characterize various perspectives, as well as to help develop an understanding of team performance.

2.1. Hackman (1983)

Hackmans (1983; see Figure 1) normative model suggested that for a team to be successful, (and therefore to be a more high-performing team), it must have: Clear direction and goals- teams require clear, well-defined goals to provide direction and motivation. An enabling performance situation- this requires ample effort to accomplish task at hand, sufficient knowledge and skills, and the use of task appropriate performance strategies. Good team design- tasks should require coordinated effort and be both challenging and motivating. Supportive organizational context- this entails a reward system, which provides team recognition for excelling. The organization should also include providing the team with educational system, so members can expand their knowledge, skills and abilities. Finally, an information system will provide the group with the data it needs to set goals. Leader coaching and process assistance- should be made available to direct team members how to operate interpedently with others in the team. The key advantages of this model include the emphasis on the organizational context and highlight the importance of material resource. However, a potential disadvantage is that it does not address the impact of team competencies on performance.
Page | 2

Figure 1 Hackman (1983)

2.2. Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992)

The model of team effectiveness proposed by Tannenbaum et al. (1992; See Figure 2) adopts the Input, Throughput and Output structure, whilst acknowledging the importance of the organizational context throughout the process and incorporating feedback loops. Tannenbaum et al. (1992) identify four high-level input variables (Task, Individual and Team Characteristics, and Work Structure) that influence the output of the team either directly, or via the team processes. Tannenbaum et al. (1992) state that team processes refer to team members interaction, conflict resolve, decisionmaking, problem solving and action co-ordination. All influence team performance. The key advantages of this model include the emphasis on the team interventions, which our model has taken into account (to be addressed in later section). It encompasses individual and team training, and team building interventions. However, a potential disadvantage of this model is that it does not sufficiently emphasise the role of leadership in determining team performance.
Page | 3

Figure 2 Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992)

2.3. Klimoski and Jones (1995)

The model of team effectiveness proposed by Klimoski and Jones (1995; See Figure 3) also adopts the Input, Process and Outcome approach. The key advantage of this model includes the emphasis that team effectiveness does not emerge from individual effort. The interpersonal dynamics of the team and levels of compatibility between team members (and therefore team processes) are factors that can shape the effectiveness of a team. For example, high compatibility carries the potential of easy communication and smooth interaction, and thus influencing team performance (Bass, 1982). However, a potential disadvantage of this model is that it does not address the importance of organizational context to team performance.

Page | 4

Figure 3 Klimoski and Jones (1995) 2.4. Rasker, van Vliet, van den Broek, and Essens (2001) Rasker et al. (2001; See Figure 4) provided a comprehensive review of the team effectiveness literature and proposed a theoretical framework. Its model of team effectiveness is principally determined by the situational, organizational, team, individual, and task factors that comprise the operational context for the team. In their review, it provides empirical support for the role that these operational contextual factors play in affecting some aspects of team effectiveness. However, all of these factors are mediated by teamwork, which ultimately determines team effectiveness.

Figure 4 Rasker, van Vliet, van den Broek, and Essens (2001)

Page | 5

Section 3: Framework of Team Performance

As discussed earlier, many researchers have attempted to understand and measure team performance. Yet today, there exists no single, universally accepted model of team performance (Henderson & Walkinshaw, 2002). Whilst no attempt is made to build a universal model of team performance, a theoretical framework is developed first to explain the team performance in the following sub-section.

3.1. Measures of Team Performance

Developing an accurate theoretical framework to explain team performance requires first establishing a clear, measurable definition of team performance. Factors can then be identified that influence the measures. The measures we used for team performance would normally focus on: Productivity- considering measures such as volume, throughput Costs- human, processing and raw materials Quality- acceptability, closeness to specification, reject rate, standards met Timeliness- meeting agreed deadlines and schedules Customer satisfaction- number of complaints and level of satisfaction

3.2. An Overview of the Framework Structure

A synthesis of the theories described in previous section resulted in an input-output framework (see Figure 5). However, this framework deviates somewhat from the more traditional input-process-output models by treating process as an input. The rationale for this approach is that process criteria have a reciprocal relationship with input criteria and that both affect team performance and this underlying principle was also supported by Cohen (1994). Also, an input-output framework is justifiable due to the

Page | 6

main interest in our theoretical model is to find out factors that directly affect team performance only. The primary used for including or excluding a factor was 1. Its frequency of use in previous theoretical models. 2. Review of other team performance models, e.g. Driskell et al. (1987; see Appendix A), Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995; see Appedix B), Shanahan (2001; see Appendix C), and Blendell et al. (2001; see Appendix D). Table below presents the characteristics of high-performing teams that are listed by most of the preceding researchers. Hackman (1983) Leadership Skills Team Competencies Team Processes Organizational Context X X X X X X Tannenbaum et al. (1992) Klimoski and Jones (1995) X X X Rasker et al. (2001) X X X X

Figure 5 Framework of Team Performance

Page | 7

3.3. Conditions of High-performing Team

A high-performing team depends on four conditions. First, a good leader that helps to manage the internal and external relations of teams and orient teams toward their goals. Second, the team must contain right group of people to perform the task. Third, the team needs to combine its resources effectively to complete the task. Fourth, the organization must provide a supportive context for the team. Although these are characteristics of high-performing teams, the importance of these various characteristics changes depending on the types of team. 3.3.1 Leadership Skills The leadership role is a crucial team characteristic because the leader plays an important part in determining team success. Robbins (1994) identifies four main leadership functions: planning, organizing, leading and controlling. Planning involves formulating broad strategies to achieve organization objectives. Organizing involves assigning responsibilities to team members for tasks. Leading involves inspiring and motivating team members to contribute maximum effort in pursuit of team objectives. Finally, controlling involves assessing how effectively the organization is meeting its objectives, and taking remedial action wherever it is required. 3.3.2 Team Competencies The transformation of a team of individuals into a high-performing team requires team competencies- the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for the performance of the teams tasks (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). In other words, the team must contain right group of people with the knowledge, skills, and abilities that match the requirements of the task. Teams with better knowledge, skills and abilities will perform better (Gladstein, 1984; Tannenbaum et al., 1992).

Page | 8

3.3.3 Team Processes Having the right people with competencies does not guarantee success. Team members must be able to work together and coordinate their efforts successfully to complete the task. Carron (1982) defines team cohesion as a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives. In other words, the ability of a team to work together and remain cohesive in achieving their common goal without regard what challenges they are faced with. Carron et al. (2002) carried out a study which shows that cohesion has a large effect on performance, that how cohesive a team was had a direct link with how a team performed. In addition, team stability in terms of team member turnover can foster team performance (Van Vugt, 2008). Teams that have lower turnover rates experience higher levels of cohesion, which can lead to higher team performance. 3.3.4 Organizational Context The organizational context has a significant effect on whether teams operate successfully (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Teams may be used to improve the operations of organization, but teams are sensitive to their organization environments and need the right conditions to be successful. Therefore, the organization provides a context for the team. The organizational culture supports the team by creating an environment that encourages open communication and collaboration effort. The organizational systems support the team by providing direction, resources, information and assistance. Lastly, the willingness of the organization to reward on successful performance is also an important aspect of the organizational context.

Page | 9

Section 4: Model of Team Management

The concept of system dynamics allows for the creation of complex models that can help in the understanding of the behavior of interrelated components in complex systems (Milling, 2001). These systems are governed by feedback loops. These feedback loops interrelate and have effects on other components of the system (Sterman, 2000). These loops were both positive loops and negative loops. Positive loops were those where the increase in one component would lead to the increase in another component. Negative loops were those where the increase in one component would lead to the decrease in another component.

4.1 Assumptions
Some necessary assumptions need to be stated before constructing the feedback loops, these include: 1. It assumes that the important corporate issue of mission and goal setting have been addressed and resolved, which means the performance goals have been clarified and clear direction has been provided for team members to follow. 2. It assumes that the objectives of the organization are understood by all the team members involved, and they know how they can contribute to the total picture. In other words, team members know what the expectation of their role is. 3. It assumes that every team member has basic values about what is right and wrong concern with the social behavior, nationalism and environmental issues, to name just a few. For example, if the team task is drug running or gang fight, most probably we will not take the job because the values conflict with our deeply held beliefs and convictions about basic rights and wrongs.

Page | 10

4. It assumes that the team size is fixed due to the difficulty of quantifying the element in a measurable term. Campion et al. (1993) assert that teams need to be large enough to accomplish their assigned work, but when too large, team may become dysfunctional because of increased need for coordination or reduced involvement of members. Also, the effect of team size on performance also varies according the type of task assigned the team. Therefore, judging from the above complexity, team size will not consider in the model for simplification purpose. 5. It assumes that every team member have no preference fit with regard to the tasks they do, which means they will perform at the best level for every task to help the organization to achieve the goal. Therefore, task design has no significant effect in affecting the team overall performance. 6. It assumes that all teams are homogeneous and it can contribute as much as a heterogeneous (diverse) team.

4.2 Causal Loop Diagram

Figure 6 Causal Loop Diagram

Page | 11

The balancing loop B1 and B2- in Figure 6 suggests that a decrease in the team performance may increase the perceived need of the team to improve or change, creating the sense that the engagement in team interventions is necessary in order to improve the team performance. The difference between the actual performance (represented by the variable team performance) and the desired performance goal generates a gap that allows the team to assess its need to improve or change in order to reach its goal. Therefore, as team performance rises, the performance gap tends to decrease given that desired performance goal (the objective of the team) is constant and does not change along the study period, leading to a decrease in the engagement of the team in team interventions. The benefits created by team interventions towards team competencies and team processes are thus declined, leading eventually to inferior outcome. However, once the team performance decreases, the performance gap will increase, making the system work in an opposite direction in an attempt to restore the team performance. According to Tannenbaum et al (1992)s model of team effectiveness, team training can influence performance by either improving the team process skills, or improving teams knowledge, skills and abilities. For example, access to training has been shown to differentiate higher performing teams from other teams (Sundstrom et al. 1990). Training team skills, e.g. communication and co-ordination result in improved team performance (Lassiter et al. 1990). Tannenbaum et al. also identified team building as a team intervention. Team building can improve goal setting; enhance team characteristics and interpersonal relationships, and thus improving the team processes.

Page | 12

4.3 An Overview of the Model Structure

Figure 7 Causal Model of Team Management Furthermore, the effect of leader coaching is influenced by the leadership skills, which can affect both teams competencies and processes. Leader coaching was the factor with the highest correlation to positive team skills. Individuals who had leader coaching were more likely to have higher levels of team knowledge, skills and abilities (Hartenian, 2003). Also, leader coaching is designed to improve coordination in the team (and thus team process) by identifying the individual roles of team members, matching team members capabilities to their roles, developing performance strategies, and monitoring and providing feedback about performance (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Therefore, leader coaching is a flow into the teams competencies and processes. That flow is a dynamic that creates a positive feedback loop resulting in the teams competencies and processes to be higher than they would have, and eventually improving teams performance.

Page | 13

Section 5: Model of Football Team Management

Professional football is an ideal environment for testing our model concerning team dynamics. First, it is a team sport involving high degrees of coordination between the players. Second, performance data from competitive team sports are reasonably objective and easy to compare, because one simply examines the league ranking or number of points accumulated over an entire season. Finally, team statistics are readily available online and well documented. In this study, our primary archive analysis focused on the 2010/11 Premier League season, which is the top level of English professional football. There are a total of 20 teams and each team play a season 38-game schedule made up of two matches against each of the other 19 teams, home and away. A Premier League football match is played between two teams of 11 players, consists of two periods of 45 minutes each, together with three substitutes who can be used at any time during the match.

5.1 An Overview of the Revised Model Structure

Figure 8 Causal Model of Football Team Management

Page | 14

Managerial Skills- Compared to the previous model, the leadership position in the professional football team is manager. The contribution of the football manager to team performance, which is largely dependent on his managerial skills, can be broken down into a direct and an indirect component. Taking the collection of players at his disposal as given, the managers direct contribution is to maximize performance through astute team selection, superior tactics and powers of motivation. For example, the former Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho took over the club in the summer of 2004 and he promptly guided the team to two successive Premier League titles. Wagg (2007) places this recent club success by virtue of the managers skills. Besides determination, level of discipline and motivating, manager should also possess other important skills such as man management, judging player ability, judging player potential and tactical knowledge in order to lead the team to achieve higher performance. Detail description of different attributes can be found in Appendix E. Effect of Manager Coaching- Over the longer term, the managers indirect contribution is to enhance his existing squad, either through coaching players so as to improve their competencies, or coaching team so as to increase cohesiveness and to maintain stability within the team. For example, when Kenny Dalglish took up his position as caretaker manager of Liverpool in mid-way through the 2010/11 season, the team was struggled to find form and suffered from a poor run of results. However, during the half a season he coached the team, Liverpool experienced a football revolution, credited to his effective communication and motivational skills. A feeling of belonging together was developed followed by a succession to renew a sense of cohesion within the team. More importantly, he restored stability back to the team in the short term and many players have gained far more confidence whilst under his guidance. Maxi Rodriguez is a prime example. Since Dalglish took over the team, he
Page | 15

had been given chance to be involved more in first team and his form since returning to the side from injury had been nothing short of sensational. Seven goals in three games are incredible. That led to a strong performance in the second half of the 2010/11 season and ignited Liverpools revival with a sixth place finish.1 Backroom Staff Skills & Effect of Training- In the modern-day professional football, the manager is likely to delegate duties among a team of subordinate coaches and assistant manager (backroom staff), responsible for training affairs. 2 Their skills in coaching are directly proportional to the quality of training that can offer for the team. Determination, level of discipline and motivating has become the most important attributes for any backroom staff in terms of training as these attributes also determine the skills of the manager in terms of coaching (see Appendix E). Besides this, according to Frick & Simmons (2005), who suggest that an increase in wages and transfer spending needs to be accompanied by some investment in coaching talent if teams are to progress up to the league. Therefore, the role of backroom staff in team structure is significant and simply cannot be ignored in our revised model. Engagement in Training- One way for teams to improve is by training and playing together so that players can perfectly synchronize their activities on the field (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Therefore, whenever the team suffered loss, the performance gap increases, indicating the perceived need of the team to engage more in training activities, with the aim to rebound back from the defeat. A typical days training will include strength, aerobic, GK shot stopping, GK handling, tactics, ball control, defending, attacking and shooting. The levels of engagement in training and backroom staff skills determine the effect of training towards team competencies and processes.
1

Why its only right Kenny Dalglish got the Liverpool job: http://thefootballfront.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-its-only-right-kenny-dalglish-got.html 2 Assume that manager is not involved in any training activities.

Page | 16

Team Competencies- Any football team that wants to win the championship must assemble a competence team, contains players with knowledge, skills and abilities that can deliver the result. Therefore, teams are always improving their squad and buying better quality players so they have strength in depth to challenge for the desired position in the league. In other words, higher team competencies, means a stronger squad with greater quality players and strength in depth, increase the chances of winning the league. Team Processes- Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships. Even the legendary basketball player, Michael Jordan emphasises the importance of teamwork in achieving success. In the context of football, a team may have eleven quality players but if these individual talents and skills don't blend into a team, they dont stand a great chance of winning matches. In addition, according to Van Vugt et al. (2008), football teams with greater stability, or a lower player turnover performed relatively better, measured over an entire league season, than teams with higher player turnover. Organizational Context- Measured by management support that express in the form of financial injection upon a club can enhance team performance. For example, under the ownership of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, Chelsea FC spent 150 million on players and abruptly won the league for the first time in 50 years. In August 2008, Manchester City FC was purchased by mega-rich Abu Dhabi United Group, and the takeover pushed the team took transfer spending to an unprecedented level, with an outlay of over 100 million on players. The team has been able to achieve success in the 2011/11 Premier League season by clinching third spot, the club highest league position since 1977.

Page | 17

5.2 System Dynamics Model

In this section, step-by-step discussion about the dynamic representation of the model will be presented. This model attempts to accurately represent real world situations and seek to understand the complex interdependences of factors and underlying structures that influence professional football team performance over time. 5.2.1 An Overview of System Dynamics Model Structure The system dynamics model builds upon the revised model developed previously (see Figure 8) and essentially captures into a stock and flow diagram, while maintaining the correspondent names of each factor from the previous model.

Figure 9 System Dynamics Model of Football Team Management3 5.2.2 Model Specification In the model, team performance is a stock representing the number of points accumulated over an entire season; thirty eight matches with each team gains three points for a victory, one point for a draw, and no points for loss.
3

For bigger and clearer view of the system dynamics model; see Appendix F.

Page | 18

( )

Flows or rates of change alter the level of a stock. The rate of change in the level of team performance is represented by building performance, given by the difference between indicated team performance and the actual level of team performance divided by the time it takes to gain or lose performance.

Indicated team performance consists of four basic components: managerial skills, team competencies, team processes and organizational context, and it can be expressed in the following equation.

The first component is managerial skills, which manager plays an important role in directly promoting team performance and he has an ability to influence team competencies and processes by effective coaching. The higher (lower) the managerial skills, the higher (lower) the effect of coaching on competencies and processes. In the model a graphical function denominated coaching function represents how the managerial skills affect the ability of the manager in effectively coaching the team. The curve is S-shaped representing the assumption that near the right-hand and lefthand limits, small changes in managerial skills are likely to slightly influence the effect of coaching in both team competencies and processes.

Page | 19

Effect of Coaching Function on Competencies = GRAPH (Managerial Skills)

Effect of Coaching Function on Processes = GRAPH (Managerial Skills)

Besides managerial skills, backroom staff skills also have an ability to influence competencies and processes by providing quality training towards the team. The effect of training on competencies and processes can be expressed in the following equation,

Page | 20

Both the attributes of the managerial and backroom staff skills are extracted from the Football Manager 2011 database, which is a football management simulation video game. Detail scores of the attributes for different teams manager and individual backroom staff member can be found in Appendix G. Both measures go from 0.5 to 1. Training Function on Competencies = GRAPH (Engagement in Training)

Training Function on Processes = GRAPH (Engagement in Training)

As the level of engagement in training increase, both team competencies and processes increase at an increasing rate. The inflection point is at 20, and then the curve increase at a decreasing rate. Once more, the S-shape of the curve represents the assumption

Page | 21

that near the left and right hand limits; small changes on the level of engagement in training have little effect on both team competencies and processes. Based on research, like all Premier League footballers, training is usually five days a week, depending on mid-week or weekend matches. Daily training sessions usually last between 3-5 hours. Therefore, in our study, we assume that team usually trains 15~25 hours a week, depending on the result. For example, if the team stays on course with the expectation, then the team will train 20 hours a week. However, if the team fails to achieve the desired performance goal, then the team will engage more in training activities, e.g. 20~25 hours, in effort to improve the team performance. In other words, the need for team to engage in training is inversely associated with perceived performance. A low level of perceived performance will signal a higher need for team training. As perceived performance increase, team training decreases at an increasing rate. The inflection point is at one, and then the curve decreases at a decreasing rate. The S-shape of the curve represents the assumption that near the left and right hand limits, small changes on the perceived performance have little effect on the teams engagement in training. Engagement in Training = GRAPH (Perceived Performance)

Page | 22

The second component is competencies function, which we assume that team competencies have linear relationship with team performance. Competencies Function = GRAPH (Team Competencies)

Team competencies are a stock representing the level of competencies the team can achieve. It varies between 25 and 175 million pounds as we determine this range by examining the minimum and maximum teams wage bill in season 2010/11. ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial team competencies are measured by teams wage bill, which the data are derived from company accounts and represent the sum of wages for all players. According to Phil Barnes (2011), a significant positive relationship between individual annual team wage bills and the level of seasonal points they accrued is identified, which is based on the Premier League between the 2000/01 and 2006/07 season. Besides this, Szymanski and Smith (1997) also suggested that for European soccer, a highly correlated relationship between team wage bill and performance can be shown. Full Premier League financial report for season 2010/11 can be found in Appendix H.
Page | 23

The rate of change of team competencies are given by

Indicated team competencies represent the level of team competencies that the team ideally should have to operate at optimal performance.

We assume that both training and coaching contribute fifty percent each to the overall indicated team competencies. The third component is processes function, which we assume that team processes also have linear relationship with team performance. Processes Function = GRAPH (Team Processes)

Team processes are a stock representing the level of processes the team can achieve. It varies between 0.4 and 1 as we determine this range by examining the minimum and maximum stability index in recent Premier League seasons.

Page | 24

( )

Teamwork exists as a result of cohesiveness in a team. Although both teamwork and cohesion are influential factors to performance, Widemeyer at el. (2002) say that there is no theoretical or conceptual model that can be used to measure these characteristics. Therefore, in our study, team stability is used to measure initial team processes as cohesion develops the longer a team is together with the same players (Van Vugt et al., 2008). The stability index is simply expressed as the percentage (0-100%) of players who at the start of the league season were also playing for the same team at the beginning of the previous season. For example, in season 2010/11, Manchester United had a stability index of 76.92%, indicating that, at the start of season 2010/11, 30 out of their squad of 39 players were also with the club at the start of the previous year (2009/10). This measurement was introduced by Van Vugt et al. (2008) and the study revealed that the positive relationship between team stability and points accumulated (performance indicator) is established. The rate of change of team processes are given by

Indicated team processes represent the level of team processes that the team ideally should have to operate at optimal performance.

Page | 25

We assume that both training and coaching contribute fifty percent each to the overall indicated team processes. The last component is context function, which we assume that team performance increases at a decreasing rate before the inflection point at 50, and then the curve increase at a decreasing rate. Context Function = GRAPH (Organizational Context)

( )

( )

Organizational context varies between 0 and 100 million pounds as we determine this range by examining the minimum and maximum cash injection by management board in recent Premier League seasons. It is measured in the form of financial support from management board that consists of transfer budget at the start of each season to bring in quality players and backroom staff into the team. In addition, collective win bonuses will be decided at the start of season to serve as a motivation to the team and to be shared among the players if the team can win the title. Should the team fail to win the championship; the bonus will be scaled down depending on the final league position.

Page | 26

Both the amounts of the transfer budget and win bonuses are extracted from the Football Manager 2011 database. Since it is difficult to measure performance instantly, the model captures teams reactions toward perceived performance rather than actual performance. Perceived performance of the team is given by

Desired performance goal is a constant that depicts the level of performance the organization wants to achieve. In our study, it is the number of points defined by the management board or manager at the start of each season to offer the team a target to accomplish. It is also an individual entity with different meanings for different teams. For example, to the recently promoted teams, the minimum expectation is to avoid relegation and the traditional benchmark for safety is reaching forty points.4 However, to the teams that aim for title challenge, higher points might be set to win the title. For example, the current manager of Manchester United, Sir Alex Ferguson sets eightyfour points target at the start of 2011/12 season for the team to secure the championship.5 Detail of the minimum expectation for different team (extracted from the Football Manager 2011 database), with respect to the desired performance goal and league ranking can be found in Appendix I. 5.2.3 Simulation and Validation Since the Premier League format is made up from a season-total of 38 matches, the simulation model will be based on 38-week analysis as we assume that each team

Understanding the Premier League: http://worldsoccer.about.com/od/soccer101/a/101_Prem.htm

Sir Alex sets 84-point target: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/940315/man-united's-siralex-ferguson-sets-84-point-target-to-win-title?cc=4716

Page | 27

plays one match in a week. In this study, teams with mid/end-season changes of manager/backroom staff, board takeover, or bad financial track record will not be considered in our analysis to avoid biasness of the result. Therefore, we will choose relatively stable teams, as shown in the table below, noted by the alphabetical order A~J. The results (team performance and the differences between actual accumulated points and models forecasted points) are shown at the right column of the table. # Premier League Table (season 2010/11) Rank Club A 1 2 B C D 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E 10 11 12 F G 13 14 15 H I 16 17 18 J 19 20 Manchester United Chelsea Manchester City Arsenal Tottenham Hotspurs Liverpool Everton Fulham Aston Villa Sunderland West Bromwich Albion Newcastle United Bolton Wanderers Stoke City Blackburn Wigan Athletics Wolverhampton Wanderers Birmingham City Blackpool West Ham United Pts 80 71 71 68 62 58 54 49 48 47 47 46 46 46 43 42 40 39 39 33 41 -2 42 43 0 -3 46 45 0 +1 48 -1 72 71 58 -1 -3 +4 Team Performance (Forecasted Points) 80 0 Differences

Page | 28

The forecasted points of each team that listed above (A~J) is generated by six variables (enclosed with graphics frame; see Figure 9), which can be found in Appendix J.

5.3 Discussion
This archive study shows that team competencies foster performance, specifically football teams with higher wage bill performed relatively better, which consistent in achieving higher league ranking and able to accumulate more points, than teams with lower wage bill (see Appendix J). It is further confirmed the findings of Deloitte and Touche (2005) that show a correlation between the quality of the squad (as demonstrated by its wage bill) and team performance, which higher quality players results in higher performance. The model does not capture changes of players (bought/sold). It is assumed that either the same individuals play together along the period of analysis or the players who leave the team are replaced by others with the same level of skills, not impacting the performance of the team. However, the model does capture the impact of manager and backroom staff that are achieved through the variable Managerial Skills and Backroom Staff Skills. As a forecasting model, the ability to predict the accumulated points for this season (2011/12) depends on the availability of the data. However, much of the data for model parameters are extracted from Football Manager, which the latest version of this popular simulation video game is due to be released on 21st October 2011.

Page | 29

Four out of six model variables (managerial & backroom staff skills, organizational context, and desired performance goal) are extracted from Football Manager 2011 so the biggest issue is the data reliability since it is a simulation video game, which the data are most likely created by random generator. However, Football Manager has been recognized by real-life football clubs as a source for scouting players. In 2008, Everton FC signed a deal with Sports Interactive (developer of Football Manager), allowing them to use the game's database to scout players and opposition.6 5.3.1 Limitation Limitation of the model includes the use of graphical functions without clear testing and justification. Due to physical constraints and limited means to gather data, there are quite a few areas where scientific and systematic hypothesis formulation and regression analysis are simply reduced to guesswork, e.g. the shape of the graph. These constraints have substantially reduced our confidence in the validity of the model built and the accuracy of its prediction. Another limitation is we did not consider the effect of squad harmony, team spirit, board/fan confidence and other non-anticipatory and intangible factors that are crucial in influencing the team performance. The reason behind is due to the difficulty in measuring or quantifying these subjective elements. Besides this, we also did not consider the impact of cup competition7 on performance since league and cup matches are playing together over an entire season. If team suffers cup defeat, the effect of morale loss might possibly carry over to the next league match, which could in turn affect the team performance.

Everton signs Football Manager database: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/everton-signs-footballmanager-database

7

Cup competition refers to FA Cup, English League Cup and European Cup competitions.

Page | 30

5.3.2 Suggested Improvement The model can be enhanced in several ways. First, by adding outflow into the stock to reflect the fact that data fluctuates throughout the study period as the behaviour of the graph for each stock in our current study is under increasing trend without decreasing sign. For example, add outflow into the stock of team competencies to model the players injuries/sold or fatigue. Besides this, we can also add outflow into the stock of team processes to model the players loss of form or managerial change, as these elements can affect the processes (stability) of the team in general. Another way to improve the model could be incorporated financial analysis into our study by considering how bank loan, income and expenditure of the club can affect team performance. By capturing the financial parts into the model will compute a step closer to reality of how does a club works, which will enable us to have a deeper understanding in analyzing different elements that have impact on team performance. 5.3.3 Future Research With the given six variables that needed to compute the result, the extension of this research perhaps could be generalized to other European football leagues, e.g. Spanish Primera Liga, Italian Seria A, etc with minor modification in graphical functions. Besides this, this model could be used for other professional sports team. For example, North American sports that using basketball as a particular case with the objective of the study now is to calculate the winning percentage (team performance) for each team. Due to the popularity of the game of basketball, statistical data for the model parameters are easy to get hold of through the internet and these datasets are nearly always complete, except for team competencies (as demonstrated by its wage bill), which data are normally not disclosed in the public domain.

Page | 31

Section 6: Conclusion
The theory of football team management that provides the basis for the system dynamics model inevitably simplifies the real world situations that it intends to explain. In our model, we have neglected a range of factors such as club size, financial strength, management structure through to individual football manager factors such as length of experience, years in post and leadership style, which could have substantial influences on team performance. Therefore, the inconsideration of these factors might contribute to poor understanding of real world situations, which in turn leads to less powerful model since there may be a lack of strong background. Whilst acknowledging that this is an over-simplification of a complex issue, the model still highlights some interesting phenomena worthy of further investigation. The system dynamics model extended existing theories and frameworks and provided new insight into football team management. The simulations highlighted the

importance of manager skills, team competencies, team processes and organizational context on performance in general, which have further confirmed the findings in our previous literature reviews section. Key learning point from this modelling process is teams need each of the four conditions above to be successful. Higher quality players doesnt necessary equate to success, it also requires stability and teamwork between players, not to mention the skills of the manager to serve as a catalyst and his abilities to exert influence to bring out the best in team overall competencies and processes. Organizational context has an independent effect on team performance in relation to other factors as teams generally have no direct control over the amount of support given by the management board.

Page | 32

List of References
Barnes, P. (2011). Buying Success in the English Premier League. MA Sports Management , 113. Bass, B. (1982). Individual capability, team performance, and team productivity. In Human performance and productivity. Human capability assessment (pp. 179-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blendell, C., Henderson, S., Molloy, J., & Pascual, R. (2001). Team performance shaping factors in IPME (Integrated Performance Modeling Environment). DERA, Fort Halstead, UK: Unpublished DERA report. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology , 46, 823-850. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carron, A. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4 , 123-138. Carron, A., Bry, S., & Eys, M. (2002). Team cohesion & team success in sport. Journal of Sport Science, v. 20, n. 2 , 119-126. Cohen, S. G. (1994). Designing effective self-managing work teams. In M. M. (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Theories of self-managed work teams (pp. 67-102). London: JAI Press. Deloitte, & Touche. (2005). Annual Review of Football Finance. Manchester. Driskell, J., Salas, E., & Hogan, R. (1987). A taxonomy for composing effective naval teams. Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division (Code 712). Orlando, FL. Frick, B., & Simmons, R. (2005). The Impact of Managerial Quality on Organizational Performance: Evidence of German Soccer (Working paper). The Department of Economics: Lancaster University , 1-25. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly , 29, 499-517. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology , 47, 307-388. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review , 269-287. Page | 33

Hare, A. P. (1992). Groups, teams, and social interaction. New York: Praeger. Hartenian, L. (2003). Team Member Acquisition of team knowledge, Skills, and Abilities. Team Performance Management , 9(1/2), 23-30. Henderson, S., & Walkinshaw, O. (2002). Command team assessment: Principles, guidance and observation. Unpublished report. QinetiQ, Fort Halstead. Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams. In E. S. R. A. Guzzo, Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lassiter, D. L., Vaugn, J. S., Smaltz, V. E., B., M. B., & Salas, E. (1990). A comparison of two types of training interventions on team communication performance. Human Factors Society. Orlando, FL. Milling, P. (2001). Understanding and Managing the Innovation Process. System Dynamics Review , Vol. 18, No. 1, Pg. 73-86. Rasker, P., van Vliet, T., van den Broek, H., & Essens, P. (2001). Team effectiveness factors: A literature review. TNO Technical report No.: TM-01-B007. Soesterberg, The Netherlands. Robbins, S. (1994). Management, 4th edn. Englefield Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall. Shanahan, P. (2001). Mapping team performance shaping factors. QinetiQ, Fort Halstead. Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics; Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw Hill. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychology , 45(2), 120-133. Szymanski, S., & Smith, R. (1997). The English Football Industry: Profit, Performance and Industrial Structure. International Review of Applied Economics, 11(1) , 135-153. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. K. (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational pscychology (pp. 117-153). New York: Elsevier Science. Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. In M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 503-529). Chichester: John Wiley. Van Vugt, M., Hart, C., & Leader, T. (2008). Stability and Performance in Football Teams. Does stability foster team performance? A European Football (Soccer) Inquiry , 3-23. Wagg, S. (2007). Angels of Us all? Football Management, Globalization and the Politics of Celebrity. Soccer and Society , 8(4):440-458.

Page | 34

Appendices
Appendix A- Driskell, Salas and Hogan (1987)

Appendix B- Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995)

Page | 35

Appendix C- Shanahan (2001)

Appendix D- Blendell et al. (2001)

Page | 36

Appendix E- Description of the Staff Attributes

Attributes Determination Level Discipline Description The mental desire of the manager/backroom staff to succeed. of Determine how strict or relaxed the manager/backroom staff approach is, a high attribute is best as they will get more out of the players by taking a more strict approach. Motivating Determine how well manager/backroom staff motivates players, key attribute for manager in giving effective team-talk and helping to keep the overall morale of the squad up. Backroom staff who can motivate players better will get them to work harder in training. Man Management Determine how well the manager deals with people, a high attribute is best as he will form good relationship with players and management board more often. Judging player Determine how well the manager judges the players ability and ability/potential potential. Key attribute for manager in assessing his own players ability. Tactical Knowledge Determine how well the manager understands and applies tactics, a high attribute is best as he is more tactically astute, who will not only be able to coach the tactical side of the game more effectively but any advice he may offer to players is likely to be more accurate and informative. Coaching Since the backroom staff are responsible for training, so the quality of training they give is determined by a combination of coaching attributes, e.g. attacking, defending, fitness, goalkeepers, mental, tactical and technical.
Page | 37

Appendix F- System Dynamics Model Structure

Page | 38

Appendix G- Detail Attribute Scores for Individual Staff

Each staff attributes below ranges from 0~20. Skills (%) are calculated by the average of the sum for each attributes / 20. Manage Skills: Determination + Level of Discipline + Motivating + Man Management + Judging Player Ability + Judging Player Potential + Tactical Knowledge First Team Coach/Coach Skills: Determination + Level of Discipline + Motivating + Coaching Attributes (Attacking + Defending + Mental + Tactical + Technical) GK Coach Skills: Determination + Level of Discipline + Motivating + Coaching Attribute (Goalkeeping) Fitness Coach Skills: Determination + Level of Discipline + Motivating + Coaching Attribute (Fitness)

Club Sir

Staff Alex

Position

Attributes 20+19+19+18+18+18+14

Skills 0.9000

A Manchester United

Ferguson

Manager Assistant 14+17+18+9+17+16+14+ 0.7214

Mike Phelan Rene Meulensteen Eric Steele

Manager 13 First Team 17+15+17+17+9+15+11+ Coach 19 GK Coach 14+13+17+19 Fitness 11+18+15+12

Mike Clegg Richard Hawkins

Coach Fitness 10+8+13+16 Coach

Page | 39

B Manchester City 18

Roberto Mancini 20 16 Manager

18+20+16+13+16+16+17

0.8286

Assistant 14+5+14+14+15+16+14+ Brian Kidd Manager 14 First Team 17+17+15+17+5+13+15+ David Platt Attilio Lombardo Coach 17 First Team 15+11+14+19+7+11+13+ Coach 14 First Team 18+14+12+19+11+8+11+ Fausto Salsano Massimo Battara GK Coach Fitness 18+13+16+18 Ivan Carminati C Arsenal Arsene Wenger Coach Manager 19+10+17+17+20+20+14 Assistant 14+13+18+13+17+14+16 Pat Rice Manager +12 First Team 7+6+16+16+13+15+15+1 Boro Primorac Coach 7 11+16+11+14+10+12+13 Neil Banfeild Gerry Peyton Tony Roberts Coach +15 GK Coach 17+10+17+20 GK Coach 12+6+14+19 Fitness 12+18+14+15 Tony Colbert D Tottenham Hotspurs Kevin Bond Harry Redknapp Coach Manager 16+10+15+17+16+16+14 Assistant 14+10+12+11+12+13+8+ Manager 12 First Team 14+12+14+17+6+19+11+ Joe Jordan Coach 13 17+18+14+9+13+11+13+ Tim Sherwood Les Ferdinand Coach 7 Coach 17+12+9+11+8++8+7+8 Coach 14 12+4+15+19

0.6850

0.8357 0.6917

0.7429 0.6250

Page | 40

Tony Park Pat Jenning E Sunderland Steve Bruce

GK Coach 10+14+16+19 GK Coach 16+8+19+18 Manager 15+13+14+15+14+17+13 Assistant 17+16+15+14+14+14+14 0.7214 0.6660

Eric Black Stephen Clemence

Manager +14 16+15+10+9+9+9+9+9 Coach 17+16+10+18+9+14+12+

Keith Bertshin Nigel Spink

Coach 13 GK Coach 16+16+17+19 Fitness 12+15+11+14

Will Royall

Coach Fitness 12+14+12+8

Mike Clegg

Coach Fitness 11+14+11+13

Scott Ainsley F Bolton Wanderers Sandy Steward Owen Coyle

Coach Manager 17+15+11+18+14+13+12 Assistant 19+6+9+10+10+10+14+1 Manager 0 First Team 13+14+12+6+14+12+10+ 0.7143 0.5681

Steve Davis John Henry Phil Hughes Fred Barber

Coach 11 Coach 15+5+10+8+8+8+8+8 GK Coach 11+15+13+13 GK Coach 12+10+17+18 Fitness 15+16+8+11

Michael Rawson G Stoke City Tony Pulis

Coach Manager 16+16+16+14+10+10+10 Assistant 8+9+4+8+15+7+9+8 0.6571 0.5054

David Kemp

Manager First Team 11+15+13+10+10+10+10

Mark O'Connor

Coach +12 First Team 10+13+6+10+10+10+10+

Gerry Francis

Coach 10
Page | 41

Andy Quy H Wigan Athletics Roberto Martinez

GK Coach 12+3+15+15 18+13+12+13+13+10+13 Manager Assistant 18+18+17+14+7+11+10+ 0.6400 0.6571

Graeme Jones

Manager 9 13+13+10+12+11+11+10

Graham Barrow Inaki Bergara I Wolverham pton Wanderers Terry Connor Steve Weaver Pat Mountain Mick McCarthy

Coach +8 GK Coach 13+17+15+19 Manager 16+15+15+11+12+15+13 Assistant 8+10+7+15+10+10+11+1 Manager 2 Coach 16+11+12+9+9+12+8+8 GK Coach 11+11+12+15 Fitness 12+13+15+10 0.6929 0.5563

Tony Daley J Blackpool Ian Holloway

Coach Manager 15+12+15+13+11+1215 Assistant 13+12+13+11+11+11+11 0.6643 0.5450

Steve Thompson Stephen McPhee Andy Fairman

Manager +11 Coach 14+11+14+8+8+8+8+8 GK Coach 14+11+13+8

Page | 42

Appendix H- Full Premier League Financial Report (season 2010/11)8

Adapted from David Conns annual analysis of Premier League finances- The Guardian|19th May 2011

Page | 43

Page | 44

Appendix I- Desired Performance Goal

Minimum Expectation Title challenge Continental Desired League Ranking 1~2 qualification 3~4 Desired Performance Goal 80 70

through league finish Top-half finish Mid table finish Avoid relegation 5~6 7~14 15~17 60 50 40

Appendix J- Model Variables

Team Managerial Skills Backroom Staff Skills Wage Bill () Stability Index (%) Transfer Budget+Win Bonuses () Desired Performance Goal (Points)

A B C D E F G H I J

0.9000 0.8286 0.8357 0.7429 0.7214 0.7143 0.6571 0.6571 0.6929 0.6714

0.7214 0.6850 0.6917 0.6250 0.6600 0.5681 0.5054 0.6400 0.5563 0.5450

131 133 110 67 54 46 45 39 30 13

76.92 48.48 72.97 70.37 48.39 60.71 66.67 53.57 59.46 40.63

22.30 62.25 18.7 19.7 2.7 2.3 7.5 3.6 1.53 4.85

80 80 70 70 50 50 50 40 40 40

Page | 45