MULTIPLE
PERSPECTIVES
COMPLEX
PROBLEMS
LOCAL
INTERESTS KNOWLEDGE
CREATION &
TRANSFER
GLOBAL
MARKETPLACE
IMPLEMENT
LOCALLY

Ex: SLICE Team

Example: Automotive Engine Manufacturer
Co. Team Members
U.S.
Customer Main Office
U.K.
Co. Team Members
Germany
Customer Location
Mexico
Co. Design Engineering Group
Brazil
AIM: Design New Engine at New Location for a New Customer

Example: Electronics Manufacturer
Beaverton
Montreal
Boston
Cambridge
Berlin
Italy
Bangalore
Tokyo
AIM: Improving Virtual Team Processes in the Enterprise

Example: BMW
Palo Alto
Newbury Park
Oxnard
Munich
HQ
Design Studios
Advanced technology
Engineering Center
Singapore

 Communications challenged (different specialists  different language)
 Decision Process challenged (different decision-making criteria & styles)
 Culturally challenged (different cultures about how to evaluate ideas)
 Task challenged (problem definitions change so relevant specialty may change)
 Familiarity challenged (don’t know each other very well)
 Time challenged (need to be productive quickly)
 Reciprocity challenged (may not work together again)

• How do we help these teams overcome these challenges?

Thermal
Engineer
Propulsion design
Stress
Analyst
Manufacturing
Engineer
Injector
Engineer

• Designed new rocket engine in
– 1/10 th time (10 mos vs. 6 years)
– 1/10 th labor (<15% time of 8 people vs. 50-100 people fulltime)
– First unit cost: $47K instead of $4.5M
– Predicted quality level of 9 sigma
(not 6)
– 6 parts (instead of normal 1200)
– Est. engine mfg cost: $0.5M instead of $7M
– Never met face-to-face

Boundary Objects
Thermal
Engineer
Stress
Analyst
TMS
Manufacturing
Engineer
Propulsion design
Injector
Engineer

Boundary
Objects TMS
Innovative
Problem-Solving

• Definition: physical or mental models team members use to share knowledge that enables them to bridge different areas of expertise and learn from each other without all having to become equally expert in each other’s specialty.
We are first focusing on prototypes as an example of physical boundary objects.
• In short, they could be seen as anything that helps people to communicate with each other

Characteristics of Effective Boundary
Objects
TMS
Development
Faster
Project
Innovation
Characteristics of Effective Process in
Which Boundary Objects are used

Ineffective
Boundary Object Attributes
Effective
?
?

You are to be in groups of 3 role-playing designing an information system to help people to cook at home.
One person plays the cook specialist
One person plays the database specialist
One person plays the home/kitchen design specialist
Go ahead and start the design process to create a prototype

• Ask yourselves:
– What characteristics of the prototype as a boundary object made it work for communicating across the specialties?
– What characteristics of your design process made it work for communicating?
– What didn’t work
• We’ll share these results

• Sharing knowledge between specialists with boundary objects is like a learning-bydoing process
• Guided Discovery Theory distinguishes better vs.. worse learning-by-doing

• Boundary Objects
– Force participants to pay attention to detail in the multidimensional problem and possible solutions
– Make clear the boundaries on the problem space and those boundaries include team members’ expertise
– Make clear the concrete consequences of alternative actions while leaving room for alternative interpretations
• Learning Processes
– Rapid frequent feedback in small chunks focused on problem solving strategies rather than the solution
– Feedback and discussion that transfers generalized knowledge to specific examples and from the specific back to general again
– Feedback that provides constructive action-oriented guidance about possible next steps that encourages innovation given the guidance.

• Design in a new group of 3 a kiosk to facilitate the purchase of professional suits
• One person plays the customer
• One person plays the database specialist
• One person plays the retail owner who must be able to maintain the kiosk
• Use our propositions when role-playing

• Year 1: Comparative case studies of from 8-12 emergent teams to identify characteristics of effective boundary objects and team processes
• Year 2: Survey of 50 emergent teams each month for 12 months focused on temporal sequences and generality of principles from case studies
• Year 3: Action research experiment to identify cause-effect linkages for matching boundary object and team process characteristics for fast innovative outcomes.
• Would you like to participate?

• Phil Birnbaum-More, phbmore@marshall.usc.edu
213-740-0744
• Ann Majchrzak majchrza@usc.edu
213-740-4023

• Now evaluate the use of the propositions:
– Which ones worked
– Which ones didn’t
– New propositions you would suggest
Share your responses; Share your prototype if time permits!