Targets and estimates are two different things. You're confusing the two, and setting your team up for failure.
Targets vs. Estimates
A target is something you assign to your team, such as "I want this set of tasks done in a month." Management targets are fine so far as they go, but they rarely provide a means to get there. For the actual accomplishment of the tasks, you need to rely on the knowledge, skills, and experience of your team.
Estimates, on the other hand, are what your team provides based on their current understanding of the problem domain and their assessment of their own skills. A skilled person might be able to add a feature or solve a problem faster than someone with less experience. On the other hand, sometimes experience leads to insights about how seemingly-simple tasks might take longer than expected. Either way, the estimates are generally good guidelines for how long the actual task-performers think the job will take.
Right now, your team is estimating that the project will take three to five months, while your management target is a month or less. Neither side is necessarily wrong; however, there's clearly a discrepancy between targets and estimates that needs to be resolved.
Resolving the Differences Through Dialogue
What are the ways I can help team members to get project done within time?
This is the wrong question. What you're really asking is how you can get your team to deliver what you want when you want it, rather than when they think they can give it to you.
If you know how to get the tasks done faster, share your knowledge. This will probably entail you being a hands-on participant on the team. You may even have to take ownership of various tasks yourself, since you may be able to get things done faster than the other team members.
Then again, maybe not. Maybe the team is right about the fact that, with the resources you have and the experience level of the team, it will take longer than you'd like for the team to deliver on the project's milestones. If so, unless you plan to do all the work yourself and have factored that into your scheduling estimates, you may want to carefully consider whether or not your team is correct.
When a project's leadership is out of step with the members of the team, a good project manager will work with stakeholders and the team members to understand why. Perhaps your team simply lacks confidence, or wants a buffer so that they aren't blamed if things fall behind schedule. Or maybe the project's delivery dates are unreasonable based on the skills of the team or the resources available to the project. Whatever the reason, you won't really get to the bottom of it until there's an honest conversation between management and the rest of the team about the issues and risks.
Management is Responsible
Recently we have hired bunch of people who says they have little experience on technology. (sic)
Consider the following:
- The managers who hired staff who may not be qualified for the work is management's responsibility.
- Hiring staff who are qualified but who lack confidence—something that should have shown up in any reasonable interview—is management's responsibility.
- Promising deadlines to a client before gathering accurate estimates from the task performers is management's responsibility.
- Fixing the organizational culture that sets up the project team for a death march is management's responsibility.
No matter how you look at it, people can only accept responsibility for tasks they've agreed to complete with full knowledge of the details and circumstances. You can certainly assign tasks and deadlines to members of a project team, and then "hold them accountable" for the management targets, but that rarely works well in the real world. You might even get team members who will agree to anything rather than lose their jobs; that will get you a lot of agreement, but rarely will it get you completed deliverables when you expect them.
Management is responsible for gathering accurate estimates, managing the client's expectations, and empowering the team in whatever ways are possible so that the team can do as well as they can, where they are, and with what they have. Failure to do perform those essential management responsibilities is what causes 68% of projects to fail.
Visibility and Transparency Make Mediocre Teams More Effective
Flogging your staff until morale improves rarely works. However, converting your project management process to a framework that values rapid feedback cycles, process transparent, and full visibility into the project's processes and impediments will make sure that:
- The team is actively engaged in the process, and has a mechanism for communicating about process roadblocks and resource gaps to managers who are empowered to do something about it.
- The management team will have complete visibility into the progress of the project at any point in its timeline.
- Risks to the project will be visible (and hopefully self-explanatory) when they are encountered by the team, empowering management to remove or mitigate those risks.
- Increased knowledge between the team and management should result in more accurate estimates from the team, and more knowledge placed into the hands of management with which to make sound strategic decisions for the project.
When you mash all of that together, it's effective two-way communication that may enable your project to succeed despite its shortcomings. Teams that communicate effectively succeed more often, and when they fail they fail earlier and at lower cost to the company. Encourage honest communications at all levels involved in the project; it's really your best tool, so you might as well use it as effectively as you can.