"1.1 The Team’s Belbin Profiles1.1.1 Introduction to The Team Balance SheetAfter a week’s project management exercise with four team mates in the team 2,this report is written out to review the team functions and critically evaluate theperformance of the team. First of all, this paper will study the team’s Belbin Profile and briefly introducethe balanced sheet of the nine team roles at work. For the convenience and theobjectivity of the study, this report generates each team mate’s name into asymbol (ABCDE) andtabulates everyone’s major, the main strength andweakness (figure 1.1)Symbol Name Major Strength WeaknessA Chen Qishan Statistics Logical and EmotionalHardworkingB Li Li Economics Intellectual and StubbornObjectiveC Lu Weihong Finance and Balanced and DislikeEconomicsReliable UncertaintyD Zhou Wenbo Mechanical Good InconstantEngineering Communicatorand CuriousE Zhang Business Confident and NegligentChenjie Management and PersistentEconomicsFigure 1.1 Simplified Team Member ListsAs is generated in the figure 1.1, some team mates share similar background,but some do have slight difference, such as mechanical engineering. AlthoughBelbin (2010, pp.47- 51) states team members will show differentunderstanding of role profile based on their background and workingexperience, this paper presumes (pp.28-29) that members are active at work and clear about the job assigned, but are equivalently considered as youngunskilled workers to better illustrate the team functions. The only difference istheir main strength and weakness that would affect the behavior and their rolesat work, which will be further discussed in relation with their roles. To perform as the team 2 of the project exercise, the integrated team role profileis listed in the figure 1.2 by symbols of each team mates name as is shown infigure 1.1. Team Role Primary Preference Secondary Tertiary PreferencePreferenceCoordinator (CO) E C DShaper (SH)B CDPlant (PL) BCDResourceD Investigator (RI)Monitor Evaluator AC(ME)Implementer (IM) C A DETeamworker (TM) CDCompleter FinisherE B(CF)Specialist (SP) AB C DFigure 1.2 Team 2 Balance Sheet1.1.2 Each Team Member’s RoleTo sum up, the roles of the team are assigned according the balance sheet infigure 1.2 and the characteristics of each team mates. First of all, this part willindicate each team mate’s role reflected in the balance sheet according toBelbin. Afterwards, the cognitive roles will be stated on the basis of practicalproject teamwork. Since all members of the team areat the same level, thereare no concerns about either boss or subordinates. The team member’s role only needed to concentrate on the colleague level to assign the team role andfunctional role (Belbin, 2010). In addition, Belbin (2010, p82) says that“willingness to adopt a secondary role” would be beneficial for team’sdevelopment. Each team mate played multiple-roles during the project due tothe short duration of the project and quantity of members. Certainly, thefeasibility will take the allowable and non-allowable weakness of the team role(figure 1.3) into account. Figure 1.3 The Allowable Weaknesses and Unacceptable Behavior of Each Team RoleTo be specific, A prefers to be theSpecialist (SP) as the priority, and beImplementer (IM) along with Monitor Evaluator (ME) according to theassessment. When it compares with A’s actual performance in the team works,A played the role of SP and the completer finisher (CF). Since the IM and SPare the roles that required with close cooperation, A tended to work as SP underconsideration. In addition, A is regard as the best person to play the role of CF,because A is hardworking and has the sense of urgency rather, while theemotional characteristic of A seems not suitable for ME.It is reflected that B would be suitable for the role of Specialist (SP), Sharper (SH) in order. On account of the A’s role, B played the role ofMonitor Evaluator(ME) instead of SP, after all B is objective on the works though stubborn. It might due to different understanding of Belbin’s profile as mentioned above, Cis considered to be very balanced of major works as is reflected from theoutcome of the assessment. The Implementer (IM) and Teamworker (TM) areranked with highest marks for C on paper, which are also the actual roles thattake by C in practice. When it comes to D, Teamworker (TM) and Resource Investigator (RI) are theroles both on paper and in reality for D to take. D is sensitive to the resourceoutside and the relationships inside the team. Although D is inconstant, it isbeneficial to have D to investigate the resource we required and harmonize therelationship of the team.Furthermore, E played the same roles as is indicated from the balance sheet aswell, theCoordinator (CO) and Completer Finisher (CF). Although E is negligentabout some results, E is clear about the team objectives and can convince andmotivate team mates to cooperate with each other. 1.1.3 Missing and Over-Represented RoleMultiple-role relationships will have different outcomes on the level ofcolleagues (Belbin, 2010, pp.62-71). The allocation of role of the team 2 hadalready taken the factors into consideration but still have missing andover-represented role. In general, team 2 have missed the plant (PL) andover-represented TM and IM. But it doesn’t affect function and performance ofthe team at all but help the team work better from the perspective of the author. On the one hand, the missing role PL seems not necessary tostimulate ideas asa short duration project with only five members and without technical related "