Differences in the design teamwork due to the remote setting

The second research question aimed at exploring the biggest differences in design teamwork due to working remotely. Much of the previous design literature emphasizes the need for information sharing and collaboration within the design teams. For example, according to Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002), both the problem space and the solution space in design problems are very broad, which means that the design teams must thoroughly analyse them. For the same reason, Poltrock et al. (2003) stated that collaborative information retrieval is crucial for design teams. At the same time, also

when not working remotely, it can be a struggle for design teams to share the same understanding of concepts, as misunderstandings are common (Cross and Cross, 1995).

At the same time, communication can be a big challenge when working remotely (Waizenegger et al., 2020).

For these reasons, I assumed that communication would be one of the biggest challenges brought up by the respondents. Surprisingly, communication had not been near as much of a struggle for the respondents as I would have thought. Instead, most of the respondents felt that the information flow in the teams was functioning as well as before.

According to some it had even improved compared to the situation before the COVID-19 pandemic. My findings therefore contradict the conclusions one could make based on previous research about this topic.

There are, however, different reasons that can explain this. For example, the teams had created more structured ceremonies for the flow of information. For example, most respondents stated that their teams had started to keep daily morning stand-up sessions, where each team member stated what they were going to address during the day. As these types of sessions had not been regularly practiced before, it may be that the more organized communication ceremonies were a big factor contributing to the well-functioning information flow. This need for organized communication ceremonies also confirms the findings by Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002), who stated that in contrast to individual designers, design teams must focus on structuring and organizing the teamwork in addition to solving the design task itself.

Another contributing reason might be the improved usage of the digital tools. For example, the team members had started to store files in shared online locations, where all members could access the information. Additionally, the new tools and functionalities allowed for the team members to work on the same files simultaneously online.

Previously, much of the information had been stored locally, and online collaboration had not been extensively practiced.

For these reasons, I find it hard to believe that a remote setting would make exchange of information easier. Instead, it seems like the teams adopted better working practices, as the change forced them to rethink their way of working. It will be interesting to see which of these practices will continue after the COVID-19 pandemic, and if they will lead to an improved information flow also in a physical workspace. Some of the respondents stated that they enjoyed the improved usage of the digital tools, and that the working practices

before the pandemic now felt outdated. For this reason, I do think that these practices will in many ways stay as permanent improvements.

There were, however, still some challenges with the communication. Several respondents stated that due to the lack of spontaneous, ad-hoc interactions, the interpersonal communication had become more challenging. For example, asking quick, short questions from colleagues had become much more of a hassle. The lack of spontaneous social interactions also negatively affected the spontaneous information exchange, for example in terms of getting inspiration for creativity and knowledge about what was going on in the other teams and projects. Additionally, information resulting from a discussion between only a few team members often did not reach the rest of the team until the next common session.

Waizenegger et al (2020) found that many employees consider virtual meetings to be more exhausting than physical discussions. Additionally, a packed calendar due to the increase in scheduled virtual meetings can lead to employees being less willing to do any extra communication outside of those meetings. This finding is supported by my study, as many respondents complained about both the virtual meetings being more exhausting in addition to the calendar being so packed, that there was less time to do one’s individual work.

The respondents did not state specifically that the remote setting would have made them less likely to communicate outside of the scheduled meetings. However, some respondents stated that they felt that spontaneously communicating to their colleagues was more of a hassle. One respondent noted that this worked well with colleagues he had worked extensively with in the past, whereas it was more complicated to do with people he did not know as well. A conclusion that can be drawn from this statement, is that one contributing reason for the surprisingly well-functioning information flow might be the fact that the respondents had worked together with each other for several years. In the same way, the remote setting likely made it harder for new employees to interact and communicate with their colleagues. The negative impact of the remote setting on new employees was also noted by Waizenegger et al (2020).

According to Cross and Cross (1995), conflicts are inevitable in design teamwork, due to the team members having different opinions and perspectives. As already stated, the remote setting had made interpersonal communication more challenging, and many respondents considered the virtual meetings to be exhausting. For these reasons, I

assumed that there would be an increase in conflicts in the teams. Interestingly, this was not the case. No respondent stated that there had been an increase in frustration or disagreements in the teams. Even when asked specifically about it, most respondents just seemed confused by the question, not understanding why the remote setting would lead to more conflicts. Of course, it is also possible that this is a sensitive topic that the respondents did not want to discuss further.

I found it interesting that the respondents felt that the interaction with the clients had improved. The reason for this is that previously, a design team had worked in the same physical space, with the client being located somewhere else. During the pandemic, however, everyone worked remotely, meaning that the client could interact on the same terms as the rest of the team. It will be interesting to see how this will function after the pandemic. It is possible that the interaction with the clients goes back to how it used to be. It is also possible that the clients, having seen the advantage of being more active in the design projects, will demand increased physical presence of the design teams at the clients’ locations. A third option, is that the interaction with the clients will continue to stay active but happen through the digital tools, thus cementing the virtual aspect in the work of the design teams going forward.

According to Valkenburg and Dorst (1998), the main advantage a design team has over an individual designer, is that the team can utilize each other’s knowledge and build upon each other’s ideas. According to the respondents, this became more challenging due to working remotely. They felt that virtual meetings restricted the communication as only one person can speak at a time, which hindered the creative discussions in the team. For example, it had become harder to continue an interesting train of thought and build upon each other’s perspectives. Additionally, as creative discussions often happen spontaneously, trying to make the creative sessions happen during scheduled meetings proved to be challenging. The workshops were used by many respondents as an example of how collective creative discussions were negatively impacted by the remote setting.

Hargadon and Bechky (2006) described four sets of activities that play a role in triggering moments of collective creativity: help seeking, help giving, reflective reframing, and reinforcing. Considering these activities, it is easy to see why collective creativity had become more challenging for the respondents. The first three activities all rely on interpersonal communication and spontaneous social interactions, both of which had become more challenging due to the remote setting. Interestingly, the creative work done individually did not seem to be as much affected, except for a lack of sources for

inspiration. This means, that when it comes to creative work, it is mainly collective creativity, not individual creativity, that is negatively affected by a remote setting. This would indicate that design teams do not have as much of an advantage over individual designers when working remotely, as they have when collaborating in the same physical space.