The IMP-2000 software team is a disaster because of the free-riding nature of its team members, the failure to engage within their team and with other IMP participants, failure to diagnose task objectives, and failure to establish functional team norms.
The IMP-2000 software team fails to establish a successful team environment resulting in free-riding by team members. Caldwell contributes the most visible effort to the collective output of the team. He is the only software team member that presents during each of the Modules to the other IMP participants and facilitation team. It is unclear if Meier and Winkel present during any Modules. Most notable, during Module 4, while recommendations and implementation strategies are the primary module component, Caldwell discusses his interviews with managers at Texas Instruments and Teves. While the presentation in Module 4 fails to show any preliminary conclusions, it illustrates Meier’s and Winkel’s lack of team participation and failure to exert little/no effort in the collective success of their team deliverable.
As a collective, the IMP-2000 software team also fails to engage in formal and informal interaction within their team and with other IMP participants. Though Meier and Winkel were of German decent, as members of a global organization and the selected IMP members, it was imperative that their business acumen and cross-cultural communication skills were tested with their colleagues. Meier and Winkel fail to engage in sports or other outside activities with the IMP participants. It is most baffling since Meier states in his initial questionnaire that the “opportunity to network with others” was a personal goal. Winkel states that he wants a business project that requires him to work outside of his current field of experience; yet he fails to engage with his team on this project – a non-legal project. Winkel also does not participate in the historic tour of Hamlin with his IMP colleagues. Caldwell is the only team member that engages with his IMP colleagues in social settings. The software team also fails to sit together. This may be a reflection of their individual preferences; however, it clearly illustrates their inability to forge a relationship, solidarity, and camaraderie through this demanding project and rigorous professional journey. Moreover, in a professional environment, rarely do they interact with their IMP colleagues or harmoniously as a team—within and outside their required group meetings.
The IMP-2000 software team fails to diagnose the task objectives. It is evident the team does not identify specific timelines for task objectives as it fails to effectively plan and develop team deliverables at an appropriate pace. The status presentation in Module 2 fails to produce any progress to their IMP colleagues or the facilitation team. The team repeats information provided by a mentor and does not provide a storyboard of their final presentation as instructed. This is a result of the team failing to agree on a project direction and question that aligns with the original question posed by the facilitation committee. Moreover, the team’s “highly unstructured” environment fails to appropriately engage experts to assist in the development of a team deliverable. Caldwell attempts to follow up with the marketing professor for assistance on the complicated project; yet, this proves a failure because the team cannot schedule a meeting with the professor because of the team dynamics (lackadaisical nature and inability to launch) and lack of team direction as no one wants to cooperate as a collective. Winkel, Meier, and Caldwell each have individual objectives and fail to define roles and responsibilities per their skill sets and opportunities for growth and development as a team.

The IMP-2000 team also fails to establish functional team norms. The software team establishes negative patterns of behavior at the outset. The team’s dysfunction was evident from the group’s early life and set the foundation for their dysfunction. Winkel’s initial dissatisfaction with his team members and project assignment serves as a malignancy throughout the project and the impetus for his lack of engagement with his colleagues and IMP cohort. He sleeps during class and reads books about his impending vacation to Thailand. His behavior destroys any effective team functionality. Further, the software team’s “unstructured environment” establishes the negative rapport with their mentors. This haphazard behavior prevents the facilitation team and mentors from providing any guidance to the team to ensure a successful project.