EGGsplosion!!!

     Salvaging an egg that will fall from a height of ten feet with a few straws and masking tape is not an easy task. This fact was made more obvious to me during a very chaotic but educational project assigned in last Thursday's lecture. Preventing an egg from cracking when gravity is working against it is a difficult project for a single student indeed, but would it not be easier with more people on the job? After all, the saying goes: "two heads are better than one." Quite the contrary. What that particular quote did not mention was that more is better only if they work together as one. In relation, when the final seconds were counted and all of the groups were called up to the front of the lecture hall, it was clear to me that the true challenge in saving the egg was organizing a group of students to work effectively not only as individuals but also as a group.
     Well then, how exactly did my group manage to get a few students to work productively as a single unit? The answer: we did not. That is why our egg cracked upon impact with the floor... In the outline for organizing an effective group, step one states that the group should clearly "define its goals and objectives." Well, those were already specified in detail by the professor when the assignment was given so my group skimmed past number one. Step two suggests that the group "evaluate its resources and compared to its objectives." During this step, my group had focused more time on the few resources that the professor had provided for us to create our egg's protection than our actual human resources. The specific talents and advantages of each student were not assessed - in fact, the thought did not occur to us at all. Step three instructs that the group "develop premesis and several alternative strategies." This is the step that my group had committed most of our time on. Various designs that each group member had branstormed were collectively rejected or reformed constantly on the basis that our resources (straws and tape) were too scarce. In my opinion, my group had never gotten beyond this step since there was no group consensus on the final design even until the final minute. When half of the group thinks that they are creating one design and the other half is thinking of something conceptually different, then it is obvious that the design will have major flaws. Regardless, due to the time limit, my group stumbled on to step four: analyzing alternatives and make a tactical plan. Without a group consensus on what the final design actually will be, anyone can imagine how confusing the fourth step was. Everyone eventually figured out what they should do in order to get the job done; however, without an actual design, each member did not have a clear understanding of what the other members were working on. As a result, progress,  if there was any, was very slow. Lastly, when the group reached step five which directs the implementation of a plan and evaluation of its results, the group was already on the road towards failure. The plan was clearly underdeveloped; therefore, correct implementation was impossible. Without the correct implementation, the result was obvious. My group was unable to save the egg.
     I learned from the project that my group was too focused on what we were supposed to build and did not focus enough on what qualities the individual members brought to the group. Had we realized the qualities and characteristics of each person in the group, perhaps we could have worked more efficiently and completed the building of a successful protection for the egg.