ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring ETM5221 Engineering Teaming: Application and Execution Nicholas C. Romano, Jr. Paul E. Rossler

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Week 2 April 9, 2002 Structure, Process, Facilitation

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Agenda NetMeeting Experience Discussion Modes of Collaboration Team Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Process Gains and Losses Lessons Learned Facilitation

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring NetMeeting Discussion

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Meetings are difficult Poor Meetings Waiting to speak Domination Fear of speaking Misunderstanding Inattention Lack of focus Inadequate criteria Premature decisions Missing information Distractions Digressions Wrong people Groupthink Poor grasp of problem Ignored alternatives Lack of consensus Poor planning Hidden agendas Conflict Inadequate resources Poorly defined goals Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman, Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned, in Groupware: Technology and applications, D. Coleman and R. Khanna, Editors. 1995, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. p

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring An input-process-output model of teamwork Group Task Context Technology Process Outcome (Source: Doug Vogel)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Source of facilitation lies on a continuum One or more people Embedded in software (Source: Doug Vogel)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring A facilitation model Skills & Techniques Group Systems Assumptions and Frameworks Rapport/Resourcefulness Outcomes Toolbox Task Issues Group Issues Cognitive Issues (Source: Doug Vogel)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Number problem

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Revised number problem

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002 Collaboration is… Difficult Expensive Essential

12 Modes of Collaboration Same Different SameDifferent Time Place (Source: Romano)

13 Systems to support different types of collaborative modes Same Different SameDifferent Time Place Sessions Group Support Audio/ Video Group Support Team Rooms Project Rooms Team Database Virtual Sessions (Source: Romano)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring A team by its vary nature often differs in terms of… Its members’ technical knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) And their teamwork KSAs Team members probably exhibit wider variability in Teamwork KSAs than they do in Technical KSAs

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) requirements for teamwork I.Interpersonal A.Conflict resolution B.Collaborative problem solving C.Communication II.Self-management A.Goal Setting and performance management B.Planning and task coordination Source: Stevens, J. and M.A. Campion, The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, (Summer): p. 503 ff.

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Interpersonal KSAs A. Conflict resolution 1.Recognize and encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable team conflict 2.Recognize the type and source of conflict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conflict resolution strategy 3.Employ integrative (win-win) negotiation strategy rather than traditional win-lose strategy

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Interpersonal KSAs B. Collaborative Problem-Solving 4.Identify situations requiring participative group problem-solving and to utilize the proper degree and type of participation 5.Recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Interpersonal KSAs C. Communication 6.Understand communication networks and to utilize decentralized networks to enhance communication where possible 7.Communicate openly and supportively, that is, to send messages that are behavior- or event-oriented, congruent, validating, conjunctive, and owned

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Interpersonal KSAs C. Communication (cont’d.) 8.Listen in a non-evaluative manner and to appropriately use active listening techniques 9.Maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages 10.Engage in ritual greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their importance

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Self-Management KSAs D. Goal Setting and Perf. Mgmt. 11.Help establish specific, challenging, and accepted team goals 12.Monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual team member performance

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring I. Self-Management KSAs E. Planning & Task Coordination 13.Coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between team members 14.Help establish task and role expectations of individual team members, and to ensure proper balancing of workload in the team

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Difficulties with groups Some tasks are simply not well suited for group methods or processes Often develop preferred ways of looking at problems that can inhibit innovation Synergistic effect can be absent –For example, brainstorming doesn’t exceed performance of individually produced and combined results

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Difficulties (continued) Politics, power, and position can dominate methods or results –Or can suppress contributions of others A group fulfills social needs, but group seldom has ways of regulating amount Fairly reliable characteristic of groups to get off track and get stuck there

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Difficulties (continued) Groups tend to have relatively low aspiration levels with respect to quality of solutions accepted –Once some level of acceptance is inferred, little further search happens Often lack concern and method for dealing with way to best utilize and communicate members’ knowledge

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Difficulties (continued) Strongly influenced by cultural norms –In natural groups, members tend to be conservative, circumspect If the group’s efforts do not appear reinforced, effort is reduced As group size increases, effort contributed by each individual member tends to decrease

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Difficulties (continued) Reliably exhibit norms against devoting time to planning their methods –Move immediately to attacking problem, relying on implicitly shared methods –Considerable likelihood that method is poorly adapted to task and only modestly effective –Seldom have ability to change the method when things not going well

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring A group’s Stage 2 problem Team Meets Teamwork Process Gains Process Losses Teamwork’s Stage 2 Problem

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Process gains More information Synergy More objective evaluation Stimulation (encouragement) Learning Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman, Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned, in Groupware: Technology and applications, D. Coleman and R. Khanna, Editors. 1995, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. p

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Sources of slippage: process losses Air time fragmentation Attenuation blocking Concentration blocking Attention blocking Failure to remember Conformance pressure Evaluation apprehension Free riding Cognitive inertia Socializing Domination Information overload Coordination problems Incomplete use of information Incomplete task analysis Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Common process losses Air time fragmentation Attenuation blocking Members who are prevented from contributing comments as they occur to them, forget or suppress them later in the meeting Concentration blocking Fewer comments are made because members concentrate on remembering comments until they can contribute them

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Process losses (cont’d.) Attention blocking New comments are not generated because members must constantly listen to others speak and cannot pause to think Failure to remember Members lack focus on communication, missing or forgetting the contributions of others Conformance pressure Reluctance to criticize others’ comments due to politeness or fear of reprisals

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Process losses (cont’d.) Evaluation apprehension Withholding ideas due to fear of negative evaluation Free ridingRelying on others to accomplish goals due to mental loafing, competing for air time, or perceiving input not needed

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Process losses (cont’d.) Cognitive inertiaDiscussion moves along one train-of- thought because others refrain from contributing comments Socializing Domination Information overload

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Process losses (cont’d.) Coordination problems Difficulty integrating members’ contributions because the group does not have an appropriate strategy for doing so Incomplete use of information Incomplete task analysis Incomplete analysis and understanding of task resulting in superficial discussions

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons for outstanding participation Anonymity increases the amount of key comments contributed Parallel nature of interaction increases participation Adding participants almost always improves the outcomes –Good ideas are a function of the quantity of ideas generated (Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons for outstanding participation (cont’d.) When participants anonymously criticize ideas, performance improves –It keeps the group searching for better answers Any idea may inspire a completely new idea which would not have otherwise occurred –Develop activities that encourage frequent generation of new ideas

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons for outstanding participation (cont’d.) Provide feedback to groups to let them know how each activity they take maps to the entire agenda –Groups stay better focused if they understand how what they are doing ties into the big picture In face-to-face groups, peer pressure keeps people moving. –Distributed groups tend to lose momentum

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Lessons about (electronic) voting Voting clarifies communication, focuses discussion, reveals patterns of consensus, and stimulates thinking Anonymous polling can surface issues that remain buried during direct conversation Voting can demonstrate areas of agreement, allowing the group to close off discussion in those areas and focus only on areas of disagreement (Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Lessons about (electronic) voting (cont’d.) Electronic polling can facilitate decisions that are too painful to face using traditional methods Care must be taken to ensure that voting criteria are clearly established and defined

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons about leadership in “virtual” teaming Technology does not replace leadership Technology can support any leadership style Some people resist electronic meeting systems –The game has changed, oral/verbal skills and ramming an agenda through are not as important

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons about leadership (cont’d.) Loss of engagement for distributed teams –Lack of visual and nonverbal cues and low accountability appears to reduce involvement Change of emotional engagement for face-to-face teams –More exciting for some, mundane for others

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons about leadership (cont’d.) Need to develop group incentives Willingness to accept criticism of you and organization Make sure there is an individual incentive to contribute to the group effort

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons from facilitators and session leaders Preplanning is critical Find a fast, clean way to do idea organization – people hate it, and you lose them if you take to long The group must always see where they are headed and how each activity advances them toward the goal (Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Key lessons from facilitators and session leaders Be cognizant of nonverbal interactions; Even small nonverbal cues can tell a facilitator a lot Expect that ideas generated will change the plan and the agenda Group dynamics can be affected by the selection of switches (interfaces)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Facilitator behaviors Recognizing stages of group process Providing motivation Establishing a model of behavior Managing group creativity, anxiety, and conflict Source: Hayne, S.C., The facilitators perspective on meetings and implications for group support systems design. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, (3, 4): p

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Facilitator behaviors (cont’d) Maintaining awareness of own feelings as an indicator Demonstrating flexibility

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Facilitator interventions Planning the meeting Observing communication patterns Determining levels of consensus Creating situations conducive to learning Synthesizing information and building cognitive maps (Source: Hayne)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Facilitator interventions (cont’d.) Recognizing implicit vs. explicit decisions Detecting variance from structures Confronting the group regarding its process Providing structure to focus group limits and boundaries Intervening when appropriate at level of group instead of individual Providing closure

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Facilitator roles Ensuring members identify and maintain discussion focus and a procedure for that focus Ensuring everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the discussion and decisions regarding focus, procedures and decision issues Understanding group values and providing new values in the process Sensitivity to time management (Source: Hayne)

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Optimal (face-to-face) meeting sizes Meeting Type Maximum # ParticipantsComments Problem solving5 Decision making5 Problem identification10More may bog down process Training seminar15Especially hands on Informational30To promote interaction Review or presentation30 MotivationalNo limit Source: 3M Meeting Management Team and J. Drew, Mastering meetings: Discovering the hidden potential of effective business meetings. 1994, New York: McGraw-Hill.

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Guidelines for who to invite to meetings Relevant experience Must be in on decision Are crucial to implementation Most affected by the problem addressed Responsible to resolve or implement decision Direct responsibility and authority over topic of discussion Enough knowledge to contribute meaningfully Information unavailable elsewhere Summarized in Romano, N.C. and J.F. Nunamaker. Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice. In Proceedings of 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2001: IEEE.

ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring Developing an agenda List potential topics Define goal for each Handle before meeting Handle after meeting Prioritize topics and specify success for each Handle during meeting Based on Kaner, S., Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. 1996, Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.