"I don't need you! I only need this chair. And maybe this stapler." (Paraphrased- TJ)

6) Economies of scale do not apply in regards to physical things. Creative and intellectual, yes.

Easy here. More people in the teams, more you need to supply them. Some need expensive tools. Each team member is unique and must be catered to in some regard. Sure, Post-It notes and staplers you can buy in bulk. But not a Quad-Quad G5 Power Mac with 16GB of RAM, 1.5TB of storage, and a 30" LCD monitor. Plus software. If none of that made any sense, it's a geek-out. Office space, phones, anything that a new member gets, it's always a onesy-twosy thing. No start-up really gets a bulk discount for ordering 300 Herman Miller Aeron chairs for a starting staff of 5.

Additionally, as a team grows, the "buying" of people (salary, bonuses) doesn't get cheaper with the more you "buy". The return is through creative ideas, smarter working processes, departmentalized work, and sharing of the workload. Essentially an increase in the bottom line.

"I have no responsibility here whatsoever." (AFGM)

I picked this little ditty up from Brand Autopsy's site. I'm not here to condone leaking information, but upon reading it, the report doesn't really shed any new light on Wal-Mart's brand positioning.

1) They are known for cheap (inexpensive) items.
2) The corporate buying power of Wal-Mart (WM) can make or break a product, small chains, mom & pop stores.
3) Wal-Mart patrons are stereotypically not a middle/upper middle class. What the true demographic of a WM shopper is, I don't know. I don't shop there, in fact, I've only been in WM 3 times- Star Wars triolgy (VHS) and Hot Wheels ($.75).

After seeing this report, is it any doubt WM doesn't lead any category listed? I even doubt the evaluation of the so-called leading companies named. Best Buy

Every company the report is gauging beats WM in quality, presentation, and knowledgeable sales staff.

I call this the "service environment." Best Buy has a lot of equipment, and the sales staff is there to help you decide on the equipment. Sidebar: I usually know better what I'm about to purchase then them. Additionally, the Internet is usually cheaper and you can get the exact product you want.

Walgreens is the corner drugstore. WM is the corner MEGA-Store. Around here, not only is Walgreens easier to find, you can actually park and get in and out in less than 15 minutes. All in all, the report (hopefully WM didn't have to pay for it) is a huge "Captain Obvious!" If the boardroom didn't know this already, than WM is lost as far as Sam Walton's intention.

It stimulated questions that all businesses should ask themselves. Or anyone who performs a service.

1) What is your core competency?
2) Are you trying to do too much?
3) Why are you trying to become a market leader?
4) Do we evaluate and create "Captain Obvious" reports because WE aren't on the pulse?
5) Is there a problem with having someone else be better than you?

"Fixed the newel post!" (CV)

5) Tools can be shared between teams, but crucial (read: expensive) tools have to be doubled.

Sure, everyone can borrow a cup of sugar or share the same user manuals, but each team needs to have its own set of tools. Tools are used to get the job done, whether the job is changing a light bulb or using a multi-million dollar HD video satellite distribution system. So each team needs either access to the same toolbox, or a separate toolbox for its very own.

On the race team, we share one toolbox, but have duplicate tools for each team to use. These are crucial tools; like car radios, tire equipment (measurement tools), battery chargers, and tire pyrometers (basically a tire thermometer). A tire pyrometer costs a few hundred bucks for a top-of-the-line product, and since Team A has one, Team B needs to have the same one because tools remain constant among the users. Car communications also are important. A set of radios for the car and driver setup, crew sets, battery chargers, belts, and extraneous parts, it can cost up to $5,000 for the tools. It isn't cheap, but these are the tools required to get the job done, and both teams need them.

The basic and oddly-used hand tools are not expensive and can be readily used and available between the teams. On the race team, $500-600 would double the amount of hand tools available and replace missing ones.

In relation to expansion, another critical tool that can't be duplicated (and is expensive) is the leader of the new team. It isn't possible to sustain two teams that share one leader. Each team will have to become autonomous, yet still strive for the same goals.

"Show him the watch. Go on, show him. It's a Rolex." (DH)

4) Each team has a different communication mix.

This one to me is fairly obvious. Think about Team A. Been around for a while, people are comfortable with who they work with, the interaction is fluid. Anyone who doesn't share the team vision has departed the team, or has made peace with just doing their part.

Team B comes along. New group of people. New interaction with others. Some people in Team A move to help Team B grow, which can be a problem for those entrenched in the Team A environment. The internal communication mix suddenly becomes diverse in Team B, and adds a new mix with Team B to Team A.

If the Teams are located in different areas, like church campuses, then Team B may use different communications techniques to the Team and its audience. Urban downtown location is busy, busy, busy, so e-mail, street posters, handouts and noisy cell phone calls may be the most effective tools. In Rural farmland, a home phone call for 45 minutes, a letter, and a house visit may be effective tools. Each tool requires different content, delivery, and lead time to effectively present the Team goals.

The quicker a communication mix is understood and adapted to, the quicker Team B can perform. No dropped projects, miscommunication of main points, and everyone stays on the same road.

"POW!"

My nephew is awesome! He had a little spill on a pogo stick and had some slight trauma. He is a tough kid and good sport. Although I really don't want to see him on the MTV show "Scarred".

"You moved the headstones but not the bodies?!" (P)

It's kinda odd, but the post title comes from the movie Poltergeist where Craig T. Nelson's character is talking with the house builder/developer about why the ghosts are terrorizing their house. The builders built the houses over a graveyard, but just moved headstones, not the graves of the dearly departed. All the other houses are fine, just the one is possessed. Hmm, what went wrong?

It ties in with rule #3 of growing a second team:
3) The same thing in one team won't necessarily work in the other.

Each team has different personalities that must mesh to perform. Social interaction is different. Economy of a region is different. It can be argued that McDonald's, Wal-Mart, AM/PM are a direct rebuttal to this rule. I argue that these companies have some or all of the following: high employee turnover, lackluster customer service, and sell commodities low on perceived value. That doesn't exactly mean successful in my book. Sure, the profits are good, but to consumers gain anything other than bigger guts, lower patience thresholds, or broken lawn furniture?

Head coaches find this out when they move to new teams. It takes a few years to make the team perform, and that is after overhauling the roster. In baseball, managing a Triple-A team is a lot different than a MLB team. Same goes for being a plant manger in Minnesota to being transferred to Texas.

Teams will need to be managed based on skill sets and personalities, not previously established norms or assumptions. Similar processes can work, but finding the right people to use those processes is key.

"I want a Red Ryder BB gun!" (ACS)

2) Not every team will be equal or treated equally.

Skill levels of team member determine this. Each has to grow to the potential the team is heading. External forces will change how each team is treated. An established, successful team may be given favoritism or trust because that team has already connected with external influences and is a known quantity. The new team will go through hazing, skeptics, an air of contemptment (why can't you be like your brother!), and other issues.

It comes back to the fact each team is different and has various communication mixes. A new team is expected to be very similar to a existing team because the same formula was followed, or the same model was used. It just happens that teams have unique ingredients and will be different.

"Game over, man! Game over!" (A)

1) Team leaders will always help or guide the team in most need. And usually the team in most need is the new team.

Sometimes extra guidance or assistance will be needed because new teams don't exactly mesh and perform right away. After one team has been established, the new team usually has an unspoken expectation to perform similar to the established team. That doesn't happen because teams need time to meld and find their chemistry.

Team leaders will be needed to help guide a new team. While that "help" comes in different forms, sometimes it means removing oneself from the main team and going to work for the new team. This affects both teams in great amounts.

Team 1 loses a valuable player who has a role and everyone trusts that person will complete that role. Team 2 gains experience and knowledge. Team 1 will have to find someone new and fill the void, and reform the team. Team 2 will have the new leader form his/her expectation of a team with new members that are completely different. A smart team leader will realize the different personalities and learn to pull the power each member has, rather than trying to form an identical copy of Team 1.

Information sharing between the teams is also help. Sometimes a Team 2 doesn't have preconceived notions that Team 1 has, and can solve particular problems quicker. Transfer that knowledge to Team 1 and improve performance.

Teams helping teams benefits performance because the efforts of each team are not wasted trying to solve the same problem or gain knowledge already obtained. Think about how we learn to read. Someone who knows how taught someone who didn't. Sure, the teacher read rudimentary literature, but the beginner was able to understand so much faster than going it alone.