There is no one type of person required to make a team perform. Organisations rarely have the luxury of being able to say, 'John has all the technical knowledge but is the wrong sort - find a different John'. Teams sometimes come together through careful planning and design. More often there's a large degree of serendipity. Who's available? Who's affordable? Who wants to do it?

Since we can't choose the people in the team to get a perfect blend we work with what we've got. We do that by understanding each other and learning to value the strengths and work around the weaknesses.

A chief scientific officer loathes making decisions - he prefers to consult. Can the decision-making be allocated within the executive team? 

Following a corporate merger, a team of 20 pharmaceutical patent specialists were employed to rationalise the delivery of 600 products. The team were brilliant analysts, but the corporation needed fast, accurate decisions not alternatives. TeamScape showed the gaps and what needed to be done. 

A small family service company needed to expand rapidly without upsetting the existing business. How could they get better control of the cash position without alienating long-term clients? TeamScape identified key strengths within the executive. 

Using both self report and multi-rater (360) reviews, TeamScape gives a powerful visual image of a team's work style and how they go about resolving differences. With specialised graphics TeamScape clearly shows the effect of bringing a new person into an established team. TeamScape shows how a person sees them self and how they impact others. Using a simple 4-stage model of problem solving TeamScape identifies:

Individual contributions - what unique talents does each person bring?
The synergies - which people have a 'like-minded' approach to issues?
Potential flashpoints - will people's different approaches affect a team's ability to get things done? if differences do arise, how can they be resolved?