ETM5221 Engineering
Teaming: Application and
Execution
Nicholas C. Romano, Jr.
Nicholas-Romano@mstm.okstate.edu
Paul E. Rossler
prossle@okstate.edu
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
1
Week 2 April 9, 2002
Structure, Process, Facilitation
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
2
Agenda
NetMeeting Experience Discussion
Modes of Collaboration
Team Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
Process Gains and Losses
Lessons Learned
Facilitation
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
3
NetMeeting Discussion
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
4
Meetings are difficult
Waiting to speak
Domination
Fear of speaking
Misunderstanding
Inattention
Lack of focus
Inadequate criteria
Premature decisions
Missing information
Distractions
Digressions
Poor Meetings
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. 149-193.
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
5
An input-process-output
model of teamwork
Group
Task
Process
Outcome
Context
Technology
(Source: Doug Vogel)
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
6
Source of facilitation lies on a
continuum
One or more people
Embedded
in software
(Source: Doug Vogel)
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
7
A facilitation model
Cognitive Issues
Group Issues
Task Issues
Toolbox
Assumptions and Frameworks
Rapport/Resourcefulness
Outcomes
Skills &
Techniques
Group Systems
(Source: Doug Vogel)
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
8
Number problem
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
9
Revised number problem
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
10
Collaboration is…
• Difficult
• Expensive
• Essential
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
Modes of Collaboration
Place
Same
Different
Same
Time
Different
(Source: Romano)
12
Systems to support different
types of collaborative modes
Place
Same
Same
Time
Different
(Source: Romano)
Different
Sessions
Group
Support
Audio/
Video
Group
Support
Team
Rooms
Project
Rooms
Team
Database
Virtual
Sessions
13
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 2002
14
Knowledge, skill, and ability
(KSA) requirements for teamwork
I.
Interpersonal
A.
B.
C.
II.
Conflict resolution
Collaborative problem solving
Communication
Self-management
A.
B.
Goal Setting and performance management
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, 1994.
20 (Summer): p. 503 ff.
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
15
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 2002
16
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 2002
17
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 2002
18
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 2002
19
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 2002
20
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 2002
21
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 2002
22
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 2002
23
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 2002
24
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 2002
25
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 2002
26
A group’s Stage 2 problem
Process
Gains
Team
Meets
Teamwork
Teamwork’s
Stage 2
Problem
Process
Losses
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
27
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. 149-193.
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
28
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 2002
29
Common process losses
Air time
fragmentation
Attenuation
blocking
Concentration
blocking
Members who are prevented from
contributing comments as they occur
to them, forget or suppress them later
in the meeting
Fewer comments are made because
members concentrate on
remembering comments until they
can contribute them
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
30
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
Reluctance to criticize others’
comments due to politeness or fear of
reprisals
Conformance
pressure
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
31
Process losses (cont’d.)
Evaluation
apprehension
Withholding ideas due to fear of
negative evaluation
Free riding
Relying on others to accomplish goals
due to mental loafing, competing for
air time, or perceiving input not
needed
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
32
Process losses (cont’d.)
Cognitive inertia Discussion moves along one train-ofthought because others refrain from
contributing comments
Socializing
Domination
Information
overload
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
33
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 Incomplete analysis and
analysis
understanding of task resulting in
superficial discussions
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
34
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 2002
35
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 2002
36
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 2002
37
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 2002
38
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 2002
39
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 2002
40
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 2002
41
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 2002
42
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 2002
43
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 2002
44
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, 1999. 30(3, 4): p. 72-90
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
45
Facilitator behaviors (cont’d)
• Maintaining awareness of own feelings
as an indicator
• Demonstrating flexibility
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
46
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 2002
47
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 2002
48
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
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
(Source: Hayne)
49
Optimal (face-to-face)
meeting sizes
Meeting Type
Maximum #
Participants Comments
Problem solving
5
Decision making
5
Problem identification
10
More may bog down process
Training seminar
15
Especially hands on
Informational
30
To promote interaction
Review or presentation
30
Motivational
No 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 2002
50
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 2002
51
Developing an agenda
Handle
before
meeting
List
potential
topics
Define
goal
for each
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.
ETM5221 Engineering Teaming Spring 2002
52