2009:128 CIV
M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S
Exploring designers behavior in collaborative design meetings
- A graphic approach
Pablo Garrido
Luleå University of Technology MSc Programmes in Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering Division of Functional Product Development
EXPLORING DESIGNERS BEHAVIOR IN COLLABORATIVE DESIGN
MEETINGS: A GRAPHIC APPROACH
By Pablo Garrido
ABSTRACT
Globalization has caused international companies to spread over countries and continents. Moreover, product development has new and more demanding challenges, like Functional Products, conceived to cover full user’s requirements by offering functions, instead of features. This situation has caused collaboration to become tighter between engineers, often adding team members from different disciplines, and also geographically distributed.
The aim of tele‐collaboration research is to permit an effective interaction between designers, which conform nowadays needs. Some technological innovation seeks to approach distributed communication to a co‐located level. However, imitation will never substitute the real thing, and, and by this principle, these technologies will never fully achieve this goal. Instead, research should look for new forms of interaction, better than the ones that occur in co‐located meetings.
Most of the work done in this thesis arises from the believing that to achieve a new, truly efficient technology, further exploration on designers’ collaboration behavior must be done. Only by understanding they real needs we will be able to fully satisfy them. That’s why a ‘new’ study method is suggested, based on previous theoretical and practical work. This method consists on describing designers’ interaction by 5 senses, namely sense of presence, sense of time, sense of space, sense of sharing, and sense of naturalness.
Specifically, this senses are applied on the analysis of creative design meetings, which conformed one of the first phases of product development. In these meetings, interaction within designers is pretty tight. Participants usually have different backgrounds and different approaches to the problem, and it is common the use of design objects, like sketches, prototypes, or any kind of document.
The aim of this method is permitting us to better understand the interaction requirements in these kinds of meetings, where different creativity techniques are used, in order to find out which tele‐collaboration technologies would be more suitable to perform them. The graphic nature of the method allows performing a rapid, intuitive match between techniques and technologies. The discussion of the
‘coupling’ between them may give us valuable input for future research
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the Functional Product Development Department of Luleâ University of technology, for giving me the opportunity to perform this Thesis in such a friendly and inspiring environment. Especially important has been Peter Törlind and Marco Bertoni’s support and guidance.
I owe you one of the most enriching experiences of my life.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION... 8
1.1. Research goals... 8
1.2. Scope... 9
1.3. Disposition ...10
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...11
2.1. Product development process ...11
2.2. Concept development ...12
2.2.1 The concept of affordance ... 13
2.3. Creative design meetings...14
2.4. Looking for a shared understanding ...15
2.5. Design objects...16
2.5.1 Prototyping... 17
2.5.2 Sketching... 18
2.6. Group interaction...19
2.7. Creativity techniques...21
2.7.1. Creativity ... 21
2.7.2. Brainstorming sessions: Rules of the game... 22
2.7.3. Evaluation... 24
2.7.4. Creative techniques categorization... 24
3. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ...26
3.1. The challenge of distributed communication...26
3.2. Beyond being there...26
4. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK...28
4.1. The five senses of interaction ...28
4.2. The pentagons analysis method...30
4.2.1. Sense of Presence... 31
4.2.2. Sense of Space... 32
4.2.3. Sense of time ... 32
4.2.4. Sense of sharing ... 33
4.2.5. Sense of naturalness ... 33
5. ANALYSIS OF CREATIVITY TECHNIQUES AND TELECOLLABORATION TECHNOLOGIES...34
5.1. Analysis of creativity techniques ...34
5.1.1. Word association... 34
5.1.2 Classical brainstorming... 35
5.1.3. Brainwriting 6‐3‐5... 36
5.1.4. Evaluation of classical brainstorming... 36
5.2. Analysis of telecollaboration technologies ...38
5.2.1. Team Work‐Station 2 (Hiroshi Ishii, 1994) ... 38
5.2.2. ClearBoard 2 (Hiroshi Ishii, 1994)... 38
5.2.3. Roomware (Thorsten Prante, 2004)... 39
5.2.4. The distributed designers outpost (Katherine M. Everitt, 2003) ... 40
5.2.5. Spatially immersive displays (SID) (Robin Wolff, 2005) ... 41
5.2.6. Other technologies... 42
5.3. ‘Coupling’ analysis and discussion ...43
6. RESULTS...47
6.1. The method... 47
6.2. Analyzing creativity techniques ... 47
6.3. Analyzing tele‐collaboration technologies ... 48
6.4. The ‘coupling’ ... 48
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK...50
7.1 Future work ...51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...52
TABLE OF FIGURES ...55
APPENDIXES...56
APPENDIX 1: Colocated meetings scenarios...56
SCENARIO 1‐ Based on Luleâ‐ Stanford design meetings during 2005/2006, supervised by Mattias Bergström and Peter Törlind (Matias Bergström, 2007)... 56
SCENARIO 2‐ Introducing the digital whiteboard, based on the paper “Encouraging contribution to Shared Sketches in Brainstorming Meetings” (Marcello Bastéa-Forte, 2007)... 57
APPENDIX 2: Creativity techniques review ...60
Word association... 60
Army of thousand (Brian Clegg, 1999)... 60
Classical brainstorming (Rawlinson, 1981)... 61
Brainwriting 6‐3‐5 (Mycoted: Creativity and Innovation, Science and Technology) ... 62
Visual Brainstorming (Mycoted: Creativity and Innovation, Science and Technology) .. 63
Evaluation of classical brainstorming (Rawlinson, 1981)... 64
The hundred dollar test (Creating Minds) ... 65
Six thinking hats (Edward de Bono) ... 66
APPENDIX 3: Telecollaboration technologies review ...68
The Teamworkstation and the Clear Board, by Hiroshi Ishii, Minoru Kobayashi, and Kazuho Arita (Hiroshi Ishii, 1994) ... 68
Roomware (Thorsten Prante, 2004)... 70
The distributed designers outpost (Katherine M. Everitt, 2003) ... 71
Collaborative immersive Virtual Reality (Robin Wolff, 2005)... 72
Features’ chart... 74
1. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, the way in which Product Development is being made has changed. It is no longer performed in just a single company, but rather in cross‐
company and cross‐disciplinary teams. These teams should work together towards a common set of consistent goals, supported by an integrated computer environment where the information is shared between teams, machines and processes (Prasad, 1996).
This need of distributed teamwork has been increased by the recent apparition of a new industrial demand, the so‐called “Functional Products”, which are products capable of being sold as functions in addition to the parts of which they constitute.
According to Brännström, a Functional Product (FP) “combines the lifecycle processes of hardware, software and services” (Brännström). The effect of expanding this product definition implies an increased and stronger collaboration between engineering departments and departments with whom they have had no normal communication with in previous non‐FP projects (Peter Törlind, 2005).
Consequently, not only the task of inventing and designing a breakthrough product is challenging but also the interaction and communication within that team (Bergström, 2009).
Specifically, in the early phases of product development collaboration needs to be especially tighter between designers. That is the case of creative design meetings, where design specifications are not yet established, and new concepts and ideas can arise. In these sessions, designers may need to interact in many different ways, trying to achieve a common understanding of the problem, as well as applying their knowledge and skills to solve it.
Research in tele‐collaboration technologies must be headed to find ways to afford these distributed collaboration needs, while emphasizing creativity.
1.1. Research goals
In order to determine the features of tele‐collaboration technologies, as in any product development process (Karl T. Ulrich, 1995), it is paramount to find out which are the real needs of this collaboration. However, a team of designers may need to interact in multiple ways. This thesis has focused on the study of creative design meetings, where problems are stated and concepts are created and evaluated.
An effort has been made towards the understanding of how people interact in this kind of meetings. The first goal, then, has been to come up with a reliable method of study an analysis of creative design meetings.
The second goal arises from the study of creative techniques using the appointed method, and is to find out the real needs of interaction in creative design meetings.
The hypothesis different creative techniques have different interaction needs while guide us to compare these techniques.
Once the needs of an efficient interaction may be found, we would be able to answer to the question: Which is the most suitable telecollaboration technologies to perform this techniques in a distributed level? And, in case that it doesn’t exist, we may study how should it be.
The general aim of this thesis is not to follow the path of most tele‐collaboration technologies research, which is to create a system that affords us the same richness and variety of interaction that we have when we are physically proximate. Instead, the aim is to come up with useful input for products that go beyond being there (Jim Hollan, 1992), that is, tools that fill our interaction need better than in co‐
located environments. Only by studying the group interaction, regardless of the medium, we will achieve a truly innovative point of view.
1.2. Scope
This thesis can be framed in the distributed collaboration research. Specifically, concerning tele‐collaboration technologies.
The approach is related to engineering product design. It uses some of the methods attached to this discipline, as identifying costumer needs, and establish target specifications. It also has an inspiration from social sciences, related to human‐
human interaction, and human‐object interaction.
The case studies are focused on creative design meetings. These kinds of meetings are carried on by a small group of engineers or designers. They are usually previously scheduled and planned, and performed in the same shared space. The participants may belong to the same company, sharing the same profession, or may have never seen each other before. They can last for 15 minutes or 2 hours.
There is a lot of discussion about the interaction with design objects in these meetings as well, with special attention for sketching. A sketch may imply a fast drawing of an idea or prototype, some annotation in a paper, a concept diagram…
Almost anything that can come out of a pen or pencil and a writing surface.
A tele‐collaboration technologies review is included as well. A Tele‐collaboration technology is a device that permits communication between two or more users placed in different physically located environments. Usually they are computer‐
based technologies. This review is focused on the features that permit the interaction within users and within users and objects. Highly technical issues, like electronics, informatics, or a detailed study of the interfaces are out of the scope of this thesis.
1.3. Disposition
The disposition of this thesis is as follows;
Chapter 2 includes a theoretical framework, with information related to creative design meetings; they role in the product development process and how designers behave in them. Creativity techniques are introduced as well, with special attention to brainstorming. Chapter 3 explains the general state of tele‐collaboration technologies research, and what is the suggested approach in this thesis (beyond being there). In Chapter 4, the analysis method, based on the study of group interaction, is explained and argued. The 5 senses of interaction are defined, quantified, and represented as pentagons. In Chapter 5, the method is applied on analyzing tele‐collaboration technologies and creativity techniques. After that, an effort is made on ‘coupling’ techniques and technologies, based on the similarities between pentagons’ shape. Chapter 6 explains the results obtained in Chapter 5, regarding the use of the method, the analysis of techniques and technologies and the coupling between them. Chapter 7 includes the conclusions obtained and suggested future work.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Product development process
Figure 1: The product development process (Karl T. Ulrich, 1995)
A process is a sequence of steps that transforms a set of inputs into a set of outputs.
A product development process is the sequence of steps or activities that a company employs to conceive, design and commercialize a product. Many of these steps and activities are intellectual and organizational rather than physical. Some organizations define and follow a precise and detailed development process, while others may not even be able to describe their processes.
As we can see, in figure 1, the generic product development process consist of six phases (Karl T. Ulrich, 1995):
1. Planning: The planning activity precedes the actual launch of the project. It begins with corporate strategy and includes assessment of technology developments and market objectives. The output is the project mission statement.
2. Concept Development: In the concept development phase, the needs of the target audience are identified, alternative product concepts are generated and evaluated, and one or more concepts are selected for further development and testing. A concept is a description of the form, function, and features of a product. The most concepts are generated in this phase the better, so here is when creativity methods as brainstorming come into play. This thesis will talk about ways of making early design creativity phases more efficient.
3. Systemlevel design: The system‐level design phase includes the definition of the product architecture and the decomposition of the product into subsystems and components. The output includes a geometric layout of the product, a functional specification of each of the product subsystems, and a preliminary process flow diagram.
4. Detail design: The detail design phase includes the complete specification of the geometry, materials and tolerances of all the unique parts in the product, as well as an identification of the standard parts to be purchased from suppliers. It also gives information about which production system to be used.
5. Testing and refinement: The testing and refinement phase involves the construction and evaluation of multiple preproduction versions of the product, as prototypes. They are tested to determine whether the
Planning Concept
development System‐Level
Design Detall Design Testing and
Rejinement Production Ramp‐up
product will work as designed and whether the product satisfies the key customer needs. Also, production systems are evaluated.
6. Production rampup: In the production ramp‐up phase, the product is made using the intended production system. The purpose of the ramp‐
up is to train the work force and to work out any remaining problems in the production processes. The transition from production ramp‐up to ongoing production is usually gradual, and at some point the product is launched.
2.2. Concept development
The Concept Development is considered the first phase of a product design project.
This phase include the following activities:
Figure 2:The different steps of the concept development phase (Karl T. Ulrich, 1995)
• Identifying customer needs: The goal is to understand customers’
needs, and to effectively communicate them to the development team.
Also, in this phase, possible improvements for an already existing product can be identified, just by direct observation or asking to users.
The output of this phase is a list of needs/product improvements, organized hierarchically by importance weightings.
• Establishing target specifications: Specifications are the translation of customers needs to technical terms. Each specification consists of a metric, and marginal and ideal values for that metric. For example, a costumer need for a shopping car could be “being able to drive it easily”, while a specification for an engineer might be that “the force needed to turn the car is less than 10 Newton”. The output of this phase is a list of target specifications.
• Concept generation: The goal of concept generation is to thoroughly explore the space of product concepts that may address customer needs.
Concept generation includes a mix of external search, creative problem solving within the team, and systematic exploration of the various solution fragments the team generates. The result of this activity is a set of concepts. Each typically represented by a sketch and a brief descriptive text.
• Concept selection: Concept selection is the activity in which various product concepts are analyzed , with the aim of identifying the most promising.
• Setting final specifications: The first specifications set earlier in the process are refined after the concept selection. The team must commit to specify values of the metrics reflecting the constraints inherent in the product concept.
• Project planning: In this final activity of concept development, the team creates a detailed development schedule, identifies resources to complete the project, optimizes procedures… .
The concept development process can be as well defined as a set of divergent phases, where the solution space is expanded, and convergent phases, where the ideas and concepts are selected and refined (Karl T. Ulrich, 1995), (Banathy, 1996).
Figure 3: Designs consists of divergent and convergent phases by Bergström (Bergström, 2009), after Banathy (Banathy, 1996).
In innovation projects, where the problem is not so accurately defined, the designers and the process must allow for ambiguity in divergent phases, without narrowing down the scope of ideas and possible solutions (Bergström, 2009), in order to achieve more creative concepts.
2.2.1 The concept of affordance
In the late years, some researchers in engineering design, as Jonathan R.A.
Maier(Maier, 2001), argue that the concept of affordance is fundamental to understand product design. In fact, they consider it more powerful than the so well known concept of function, for instance.
The theory of affordances was first put forward by the perceptual psychologist James J. Gibson, as follows: “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes[…] It implies the complementarities of the animal and the environment”. In other words, the affordances exist only in the interaction between animals (usually humans) and the environment (in particular, artifacts designers create in the environment). So, and affordance can’t exist without both the user and the object.
!"##$"%&'()*%#)+,-&.)/0$1*&2/)&311/4"#$/1&5&6/7&8,"99&:(%$*1&;(",%&</99"0/)"#(&
!
"#!
$%&'()!*+,-%&&!,.!),/%0!1)$!')),/12'/%!'&!,.2%)!304++%$!56789!:00;$%.')%$!$%&'()!
*+,30%<&! 1+%! -,)&'$%+%$! 1&! ='->%$! 5"?@! ""8@! 1)$! ='->%$! *+,30%<&! 0'/%! ')! 2A%!
-,<*0%B!$,<1')9!CA%!*+,30%<!&,0/')(!&2+12%(D!A%+%!'&!2,!*+,3%;&%)&%;+%&*,)$@!
'9%9!*+,3')(!2,!+%)$%+!*122%+)&!<,+%!/'&'30%!3%.,+%!21>')(!$%-'&',)&9!CA%!.,4+2A!
*+,30%<! $,<1')! '&! -A1,&@! =A%+%! D,4! E4&2! A1/%! 2,! =')(! '2@! ='2A,42! 1)D!
*%+-%'/130%!-14&10'2D!56F89!!!
CA%! )124+%! ,.! ='->%$! *+,30%<&! '&! 2A12! 2A%D! -1)),2! 3%! .400D! $%&-+'3%$! 1)$!
2A%+%! '&! ),! &%2! ,.! -0%1+! -+'2%+'1! 2A12! A1/%! 2,! 3%! .40.'00%$@! '9%9! %/%+D! ='->%$!
*+,30%<!'&!4)'G4%!5"?89!CA%!*+,30%<!)%%$&!2,!3%!$%.')%$!1&!'2!'&!&,0/%$H!2A%+%!'&!
),!=#>(&%/9?#$/1@&2,!=#>(&A)/09(,@!')!1!-14&%!1)$!%..%-2!<1))%+@!1)$!2A%+%!'&!,)0D!="&
%/9?#$/1@! 31&%$! ,)! 2A%! $%.')'2',)! ,.! 2A%! *+,30%<! 56#89! CA4&@! 2A%! *+,$4-2!
$%/%0,*<%)2!*+,-%&&!$%10')(!='2A!='->%$!*+,30%<&!'&!1!-,<*0'-12%$!<%&&@!&')-%!
'2!'&!A1+$!2,!.'(4+%!,42!2A%!+%10!*+,30%<!56I89!!
J! $%&'()! *+,-%&&! -1)! 3%! $%&-+'3%$! 1&! 1! &%2! ,.! $'/%+(%)2! *A1&%&@! =A%+%! 2A%!
&,042',)!&*1-%!'&!%B*1)$%$@!1)$!-,)/%+(%)2!*A1&%&@!=A%+%!2A%!'$%1&!1)$!-,)-%*2&!
1+%!&%0%-2%$!1)$!+%.')%$!56K@!6L8!M'(4+%!F9!!
!
!
!
!"#$%&'()' *&+"#,'-.,+"+/+'.0'1"2&%#&,/'3,1'-.,2&%#&,/'453+&+6'30/&%'73,3/58'9:;<''
:)!')),/12',)!*+,E%-2&@!2A%!$%&'()%+&!1)$!2A%!*+,-%&&!<4&2!100,=!.,+!1<3'(4'2D!
')! $'/%+(%)2! *A1&%&@! ='2A,42! )1++,=')(! $,=)! 2A%! &-,*%! ,.! '$%1&! 1)$! *,&&'30%!
&,042',)&H!+12A%+@!'2!'&!+%-,<<%)$%$!2,!=1/#&B?,A&$1#/&%/9?#$/1%@!56?89!:)!.1-2@!2'<%!
<4&2!3%!&*%)2!')!4)-%+21')2D!2,!.')$!2A%!1-2410!*+,30%<@!&')-%!'2!'&!')!2A%!3+,1$!
$%&'()! &-,*%! 2A12! 2A%! &%%$&! .,+! ')),/12',)&! <1D! 3%! .,4)$9! N%&'()')(! '&!
4)$%+*'))%$! 3D! 2A%! ')$'/'$410&O! 13'0'2D! .,+! $%&'()! 2A')>')(@! 1)$! 3%')(! 130%! 2,!
2,0%+12%!2A%!1<3'(4'2D!1)$!A1)$0%!2A%!4)-%+21')2D!1+%!&%%)!1&!2+1'2&!,.!1!&4--%&&.40!
$%&'()%+!5FP89!!
!
!
!
An affordance implies an efficient action. The soil affords to walk on it, the water affords drinking, and also, as being fluid, it affords pouring from a container.
Donald Norman also claims that an affordance is what something ‘is for’. But in fact is not enough that an artifact enables an action, it should afford it well, in terms of quality. These actions should be perceived easily by the user, the so‐called
“positive affordances”, while “fake affordances” shouldn’t be perceived.
The concept of affordance provides a wider understanding of the object while designing than the concept of function. This is because the affordances of an artifact are everything we can actually do with, whereas the functions of an artifact are what it is designed for.
2.3. Creative design meetings
The creative design meetings usually occur just after having figured out the costumer needs, and having translated them into technical specifications. This is the first creative part of the product development process, where a group of people comes up with new product concepts (in the shape of some sketches and brief text) that solve the costumer needs. The aim of these meetings is not restricted to classical design problems and may include solving a financial problem as well, find a new business plan, improve an existing product or system, etc…
There are, then, three elements that define these meetings: the knowledge of the participants, their cognitive skills and limitations, and their communication skills.
Therefore, a design process can be seen as an integration of a technical process, a cognitive process, and, more recently, of a social process (Nigel Cross, 1995). In fact, designing nowadays is not faithfully represented as simply the art of applied science pursued by and individual, but as a business group of individuals who, if they are to be effective, must know how to discuss, deliberate and negotiate with others (Bucciarelli, 2002) .
It is also important that de participants of a design meeting are as heterogenic as possible (Tom Kelley, 2001, p. 65). In fact, it is recommended that as much stakeholders of the project as possible take part on it, such as engineers of different fields, architects, designers, people from marketing, clients, a customer service rep… even the costumers themselves. These participants have different competencies, skills, responsibilities and interests, since they inhabit different worlds, so they see the object differently (Bucciarelli, 2002) while sharing a common goal.
In this phase of product design, the official role of the participants is assigned, having hierarchal relations between them. However, informal role adoption is being developed during the creative sessions, by means of repeated patterns of behavior or types of comments by the individuals. For example, some of the members can take leadership role, or a “centre stage” role, while others are
apparently non active (maybe working independently, drawing or pursuing another line of thought) (Nigel Cross, 1995).
Another interesting aspect of the sessions is that participants, in a sense, are in competition with one another. Sometimes, claims and proposals of one individual will conflict with those of another, and also team members may find it necessary to persuade the others of the value of a concept they particularly favor (usually a concept they generated themselves) (Nigel Cross, 1995).
The creativity techniques used in these kinds of meetings will be explained later in this thesis, but first, we will see which are the common procedures.
2.4. Looking for a shared understanding
One of the first things that a team must come up with is a shared understanding of the problem. That doesn’t imply an agreement of which solution must be achieved, but a common ground of the boundaries, rules, and needs of the product. However, this common ground can be built and rebuilt through the moment‐to‐moment interaction of team members (H. Clark), in a sort of feedback cycle. This is made thanks to an efficient communication between members, which can be made through different channels, not only verbally, but also using face expressions, gestures, and design artifacts as well.
Mattias Bergström explains in the conclusion of Probing for innovation the phases a group has to go through to reach a common understanding:
“grounding […] consists of three key activities, namely probing,
acknowledging and understanding”[…] Probing allows both the problem and plausible solutions to be explored […] by acknowledging the probes, the team can boost or disrupt the creative flow[…] a contrasted
understanding is used as inspiration for further ideation”
Probing for innovation: How Small Design Teams Collaborate, p. 63 (Bergström, 2009)
As explained in “What’s the problem?” (Stephanie Ottenheijm, 1998), the problem solving capability of a group is defined by their understanding of the problem and their agreement. A group with both high understanding and agreement, can take effective and efficient actions about the problem. That’s the case of the “decision making” phases of a designing process, as for example when performing
“Evaluation techniques” (see Appendix 2 Creativity techniques review, p. 65‐68) However, some other researchers argue that a team of designers with little common understanding and agreement come up with a wider set of ideas and concepts, often new, often unexplored (E. Arias, 2000). Consequently, “the
differences in opinion are a source of inspiration” (Bergström, 2009, p.63). Also, not much knowledge about the problem to be solved leads to a wilder and more unlikely solutions.
The other case scenarios are when there is high understanding and no agreement, then we have conflict in the group, and when there is high agreement but no shared understanding, then groupthink can occur. In this case, the group frame is not a good representation of the group’s understanding of the problem situation.
However, group members say they agree, just for the sake of the group.
Most of the non‐understanding situations between designers are caused by a deficient problem definition. This can be solved by using “What’s the problem?”
techniques (see Appendix 2 Creativity techniques review, p. 61‐62) usually performed at the beginning of a creative session.
All these situations are pictured in the following matrixes:
Figure 4: UnderstandingAgreement problem framing matrix (Stephanie Ottenheijm, 1998)
1. “Shared understanding and agreement”; this means the problem is framed and the group can “decide now”
2. “Understanding but no agreement”; Conflict
3. “Agreement but no shared understanding”; groupthink
4. “No shared understanding and no agreement”; uncertainty and ambiguity
2.5. Design objects
One important issue on collaborative design is the use of artifacts. Artifacts allow the externalization and representation of objectives, constraints, form, function, assembly, materials, and so on (Hutchins, 1995). Examples of artefacts are pen and paper sketches, tables of data, guidelines, cardboard models, and visualisations produced by CAD applications or virtual reality technology. These artefacts can be
3/11
alternatives, information, and value trade-offs among the group members.As said before, problem situations are never only analytical or organizational complex. Mostly they are a mix, with for some problems an accent on the analytical and for others an accent on the organizational complexity. A problem situation that is more analytical and less organizational complex, can indicate that it is hard for the group to develop a clear understanding.
The focus of framing should be on creating a clear and shared understanding. A problem situation that is more organizational and less analytical complex can indicate that it is hard for the group to reach agreement. The focus of framing should be on creating agreement. Is a problem both analytical and organizational complex, both understanding and agreement need a great amount of attention.
Understanding and agreement need to be worked upon to a level where all group members have a shared understanding of the elements of the decision base of the problem and all group members agree on these elements. If there is complete understanding and agreement between group members on the problem situation, the (right) problem is framed. Only when the right problem is framed, the action taken to solve the problem can be effective and efficient. This can be visualized in the following matrix:
UNDERSTANDINGLOWHIGH
LOW AGREEMENT HIGH
EFFECTIVE
& EFFICIENT ACTION
If there is high understanding and no agreement, there can be conflict in the group. All the personal frames have been made explicit, which means group members understand each others alternatives, information and value trade-offs, but they can not agree on a group frame. Therefore they disagree on what the problem is and efficient and effective action to solve it
is not possible. If there is high agreement, but no shared understanding, groupthink can occur. In this case, not every personal frame has been made explicit. The group frame is not a good representation of the group’s understanding of the problem situation. However, group members say they agree, even if they do not, just for the sake of the group. When groupthink occurs, it is very well possible that the group has the wrong frame of the problem situation and decides on the wrong problem.
Group members whose personal frame differs from the group frame will be reluctant towards the problem defined. Effective and efficient action to solve the problem will not be possible. If there is no shared understanding and no agreement, people are either ignorant of any interpretation or confused by too many different interpretations of the problem situation. This can occur when there is no information available or multiple opinions according the available information exist. Groups feel uncertain or ambiguous. With no information available or with the information available causing confusion because it can be interpreted in many ways, effective and efficient action is not possible.
3. Framing of the problem
As seen above, depending on their understanding of and agreement on the problem situation groups can find themselves in either one of the following situations:
1. ‘shared understanding and agreement’; this means the problem is framed and the group can ‘decide now’
2. ‘understanding but no agreement’; conflict
3. ‘agreement but no shared understanding’;
groupthink
4. ‘no shared understanding and no agreement’;
uncertainty and ambiguity Pictured in the follwing matrix:
UNDERSTANDINGLOWHIGH
L O W A G R E E M E N T H IG H
C O N F L IC T D E C I D E N O W
G R O U P T H I N K U N C E R T A I N T Y
A M B IG U I T Y
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE 1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE 3/11
alternatives, information, and value trade-offs among the group members.
As said before, problem situations are never only analytical or organizational complex. Mostly they are a mix, with for some problems an accent on the analytical and for others an accent on the organizational complexity. A problem situation that is more analytical and less organizational complex, can indicate that it is hard for the group to develop a clear understanding.
The focus of framing should be on creating a clear and shared understanding. A problem situation that is more organizational and less analytical complex can indicate that it is hard for the group to reach agreement. The focus of framing should be on creating agreement. Is a problem both analytical and organizational complex, both understanding and agreement need a great amount of attention.
Understanding and agreement need to be worked upon to a level where all group members have a shared understanding of the elements of the decision base of the problem and all group members agree on these elements. If there is complete understanding and agreement between group members on the problem situation, the (right) problem is framed. Only when the right problem is framed, the action taken to solve the problem can be effective and efficient. This can be visualized in the following matrix:
UNDERSTANDINGLOWHIGH
LOW AGREEMENT HIGH
EFFECTIVE
& EFFICIENT ACTION
If there is high understanding and no agreement, there can be conflict in the group. All the personal frames have been made explicit, which means group members understand each others alternatives, information and value trade-offs, but they can not agree on a group frame. Therefore they disagree on what the problem is and efficient and effective action to solve it
is not possible. If there is high agreement, but no shared understanding, groupthink can occur. In this case, not every personal frame has been made explicit. The group frame is not a good representation of the group’s understanding of the problem situation. However, group members say they agree, even if they do not, just for the sake of the group. When groupthink occurs, it is very well possible that the group has the wrong frame of the problem situation and decides on the wrong problem.
Group members whose personal frame differs from the group frame will be reluctant towards the problem defined. Effective and efficient action to solve the problem will not be possible. If there is no shared understanding and no agreement, people are either ignorant of any interpretation or confused by too many different interpretations of the problem situation. This can occur when there is no information available or multiple opinions according the available information exist. Groups feel uncertain or ambiguous. With no information available or with the information available causing confusion because it can be interpreted in many ways, effective and efficient action is not possible.
3. Framing of the problem
As seen above, depending on their understanding of and agreement on the problem situation groups can find themselves in either one of the following situations:
1. ‘shared understanding and agreement’; this means the problem is framed and the group can ‘decide now’
2. ‘understanding but no agreement’; conflict
3. ‘agreement but no shared understanding’;
groupthink
4. ‘no shared understanding and no agreement’;
uncertainty and ambiguity Pictured in the follwing matrix:
UNDERSTANDINGLOWHIGH
L O W A G R E E M E N T H IG H
C O N F L IC T D E C I D E N O W
G R O U P T H I N K U N C E R T A I N T Y
A M B IG U I T Y
1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE 1060-3425/98 $10.00 (C) 1998 IEEE
divided in two groups: design artefacts, including plans, models, prototypes, and visualisations, an procedural artefacts, which may include forms, change requests, office memos, letters and schedules, and Gantt charts.
Artefacts are the objects of interaction; they have an important role as a communicative resource. They become the terrain on which conflicts and colaboration occur.
Agreements are reified in artefacts (Perry, 1998). Design artefacts become the common object world language in design process (Bucciarelli, 2002), where participants usually come from different world objects (e.g.: Electric engineering, architecture, manufacturing). This means, they are the vehicle of expression and shared understanding of the object of design.
Robin Wolff et al. define shared object manipulation as “the simultaneous action of modifying an object through its attributes, such as position or colour” (Robin Wolff, 2005, p. 5). They distiniguish between two classes of shared object manipulation:
sequential and concurrent manipulation. Sequential manipulation occurs when attributes are modified in sequence, whereas concurrent manipulation occurs when attributes are modified simultaneously. They also classify scenarios where simultaneous actions are independent and co-dependent. Independent actions are those where distinct object attributes are modified. Co-dependent actions are modifications of the same object attribute. An example of independent action is when two people are together painting an object where one person controls the position attribute by holding the materials in place, while another controls the colour attribute by holding the material in place, while another controls the colour attribute by painting it. An example of concurrent manipulation is the joint lifting of heavy object where the position attribute is dependent on both participants’ acctions.
It is important that design objects have comprehensive interfaces, which are the frontier between our cognitive skills and the information and functions that the artefact can provide. Then, it is necessary to use our communicative skills to share this information with the others.
2.5.1 Prototyping
Sometimes prototypes are understood as faithful representations of the final product, and focus too much attention on things such as what tool was used to create them, and how refined‐looking or –behaving they are. Prototypes can be really useful in design meetings if we look at them in terms of the product being designed, rather than the prototype’s incidental attributes.
We can define prototype as a representation of a design idea, regardless of the medium. They provide the means for examining design problems and evaluating solutions (Stephanie Houde, 1997). In other terms, they are design artifacts, which can present any shape as long as they express some feature of the future product.
The prototype can approach these features, according to S. Houde, by 3 different ways: as role, look and feel, and implementation. “Role” refers to questions about in which way the artifact is useful to the user’s life, “Look and feel” denotes questions about the concrete sensory experience of using an artifact‐what the user
looks at, feels and hears while using it, and “Implementation” refers to questions about the techniques and components through which and artifact performs its function.
Figure 5: A model of what prototypes prototype (Stephanie Houde, 1997)
A prototype may explore questions or design options in one, two or all three dimensions of the model. Also, separate prototypes can be made that may be situated in different parts of the triangle. This procedure gives the chance to work in parallel by different design teams working in different aspects of the final product. None of these teams will probably reach a definitive solution, but they’ll obtain input information to an integrated design. It is more efficient this way than try to build monolithic prototype that integrated all features.
Anything can be a prototype: a rough sketch, a cheap foam model, a totally unrelated product that already exists… as long as they give some clear information about how the final product will look like, behave, adapt to users needs, etc. As Kelley points out, “what counts is to express the idea quickly and cheaply” (Kelly, 2001)
2.5.2 Sketching
Sketching is a design tool. It implies the use of the hand, a pointer/marker object, and a flat surface. When we are sketching, we try to represent our mental image of an object or a concept by drawing lines over the surface, while holding the pointer
Implemen tation
Role
Prototype
Look and feel
and by using our cognitive skills. A good sketch is not a meticulous drawing of how the product would be, but a few fast lines that show the most relevant features of the product/concept.
DRAWING TECHNIQUES
• Do some warm up: Get used to the pen by drawing some simple forms before start sketching. Make some circles for example, trying to repeat the same form until it is round.
• Visualize the lines before drawing: Make with the eye and the hand the trajectory you want to trace with the marker a couple of times before drawing the actual line.
• The three pivots in our arm: The shoulder, elbow, and wrist are three pivots that allow us to trace precise curves of three different radiuses.
• Move the paper, not the arm: Move the arm the least you can, but keep rotating the paper and moving it around instead. You can apply this technique while drawing curves and straight lines for instance. It is important to trace few but well learned trajectories.
• Use different pen thickness: Use a thin pen to draw most of the lines and a thick one to remark the important shapes and contours.
Figure 6: Techniques for efficient drawing
Sketches are an important tool to use in brainstorming sessions (early design meetings), since they provide a shared understanding in the design team.
Sketching also supports re‐interpretive thinking cycles and access to earlier ideas.
It enables the designer to draw prototypes of the final product in an easy and fast way.
2.6. Group interaction
Product design implies social interaction, whilst it is carried on by a group of engineers, designers, stakeholders, etc… . These people need to share their knowledge (technical, and non‐technical) in order to work around ideas and concepts. That’s why communication is so relevant in design meetings. As Larsson points out, “the social character of design activity is not separated from the technical results” (Larsson, 2003).
A group of people may need to interact in a number of ways. Ellis (C. A. Ellis, 1991) categorized group interactions according to a time/location matrix, illustrated on figure 6. Within this matrix, a distinction is made between same time (synchronous) and different times (asynchronous), and between same place (face‐
to‐face) and different places (distributed). The taxonomy reflects the diversity of closeness of ‘coupling’ of geographical spread within teamwork.
Same Time Different Times
Same Place Face‐to‐face interaction (classrooms, meeting rooms)
Asynchronous
interaction (project scheduling, coordination tools)
Different Places Synchronous distributed interaction (shared editors, video windows)
Asynchronous
distributed interaction (e‐mail, bulletin boards)
Figure 7: Group interaction time/location matrix by Ellis (C. A. Ellis, 1991)
When speaking about creative design meetings, usually we focus in the same time interaction cell column. Both same place interaction and different places are studied in this thesis,since usually distributed communication technologies try to emulate co‐located interaction.
In co‐located communication, we are used to keep our partner in our vision field all the time. Communication channels as gestures, facial expressions, eye contact and gazing or pointing help to find a common ground when explaining and debating concepts. Also, co‐located meetings enable useful forms of communication like embodiment. That means, use your body to express ideas and concepts in a more efficient way. It can be combined with verbal language, and also can imply the interaction with design objects. The feeling of presence effectiveness is proved in co‐located meetings. In the appendix section (Appendix 1 Scenario 1 (Matias Bergström, 2007)) an example of co‐located meetings is explained.
In distributed meetings, then, presence need to be modeled. In Experienced Presence within ComputerMediated Communications (Stef G. Nicovich, 2005), the authors define Presence as the result of immersion in the CMC environment, in which the artificial environment impacts a participant in place of the natural environment. According to Steuer (Steuer, 1995), vividness and interactivity are the two basic elements that contribute to level of immersion in the CMC channel.
Vividness refers to the impact of the senses being accessed and the quality of the experience, and interactivity is the extent to which users can participate in modifying the form and content of a mediated environment. As for how a person receives and analyze the information, Nicovich et al. use the concept of Empathy, defined as “the ability to project oneself into another”(Stef G. Nicovich, 2005). They argue that both Empathy and Presence are closely related in a CMC communication since “higher levels of empathic ability will lead to higher levels of experienced presence”.
Ijsselsteijn and Riva (Wijnand Ijsselsteijn, 2003) divide presence in two categories:
physical and social. Physical presence refers to the sense of being physically located in mediated space, whereas social presence refers to the feeling of being together, of social interaction with a virtual or remotely located communication partner. At the intersection of these two categories, they identify co‐presence or a sense of being together in a shared space, combining significant characteristics of
both physical and social presence. An example of a technology that enables physical presence is TV, a technology in the social presence category would be the telephone, and a technology that combines both components is Videoconferencing.
A workspace, where the group interaction takes place, is not only defined by its physical boundaries, but by the lived relationship between the people in the space (Bergström, 2009). In some environments, like in co‐located meetings, individuals can change quickly between a local conversation and discussing the general topic with the rest of the designers. Also, team members’ position or presence in their work environment at a given time should provide indication to the others of their focus of concern, or they level of activity (Mark, 2002). For instance, a designer sitting far away from the whiteboard in a creativity session express low level of activity, or maybe that he is working in another approach to the problem, while standing next to it express and active input to the idea creation. Sharing the manipulation of objects is afforded as well, and requires a certain level of proximity between collaborators and objects, and often a level of mobility within the workspace is necessary as well (Robin Wolff, 2005).
2.7. Creativity techniques
2.7.1. Creativity
Creative thinking refers to how people approach problems and solutions‐ their capacity to put existing ideas together in new combinations. The skill itself depends quite a bit on personality as well as on how a person thinks and works.
Also, achieving success in ideation depends strongly on the personal motivation on solving the problem.
As Edward de Bono (expert in strategic and creative thinking) claims, the way to find creativity is “Thinking outside the box”:
“We are all within a certain box framed by constraints, by expectations, by perceptions and concepts we use […] we should break out the box in order to get unexpected ideas, out of our usual behavior and thinking”
Edward de Bono on Creative Thinking, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSjZOjNIJg
For this purpose exist, however, several creativity techniques to help us breaking outside the box (see Appendix 2 Creativity techniques review, p. 62‐65). Some techniques are used to know what the problem is and come up with a general direction of attack, and some other’s goal is to generate as much ideas and solutions to the problem as possible.
However, in business creativity, and idea can’t be just original, it has to be appropriate‐ useful and actionable. It must somehow influence the way business gets done‐ by improving a product, for instance, or by opening up a new way to approach a process (Amabile, 1998). That’s why it is necessary an evaluation phase
after the concept creation, since usually only one or two ideas, amongst the hundreds, may be really implemented as a solution.
2.7.2. Brainstorming sessions: Rules of the game
Brainstorming is possibly the most important procedure in concept creation. It is an opportunity for teams to “blue sky” early in a project, or to solve a tricky problem. It is a group technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution of a problem. (Wikipedia). A brainstorming session has its own rules and idiosyncrasies, which can be applied to any creative technique, except the one about duration and the number of participants.
These are some of the well‐known ground rules for brainstorming, designed to create a creative mood in the meeting:
• Focus on quantity: The greater number of ideas is generated, the greater the chance to produce a valid solution.
• Keep the record: Someone should write down all the ideas as they occur.
• Withhold criticism: Always look at ideas in a positive way, by adding and extending them. Reserve criticism and judgment for a later 'critical stage' of the process.
• Welcome unusual ideas: Wild ideas are welcome. They can make the participants approach to the solution from different perspectives.
• Combine and improve ideas: 2 average ideas combined can generate a single really good idea.
However, brainstorming sessions rules are far more extent than that, if we really want it to be productive. As Kelley explains in The Art of Innovation (Tom Kelley, 2001), “the problem with brainstorming is that everyone thinks they already do it […] most of people are familiar with the fundamentals‐like sticking to one conversation at a time and building on the ideas of others‐ but it takes extra effort if you want a great brainstormer (a brainstorming session) with valuable results”.
“the problem with brainstorming is that everyone thinks they already do it […] most of people are familiar with the fundamentalslike sticking to one conversation at a time and building on the ideas of others but it takes extra effort if you want a great brainstormer (a brainstorming session) with valuable results”.
The Art of Innovation, p.55 (Tom Kelley, 2001)
Kelley reveals some hints to perform an efficient brainstorming session:
• Duration: Sixty minutes seems to be the optimal length, being able to stretch it to an hour and a half. It is difficult to keep for much longer the mental activity required. However, sessions may go on until all the ideas have really dried up, and all the methods of stimulating new ideas have been used.
• Sharpen the focus: It is important to have an accurate definition of the problem. It should not be too narrow, neither too fuzzy, “something tangible that participants can sink their teeth into, without limiting the possible solutions”.
• Number your ideas: It motivates participants during and before a session, fixing a goal. Kelley claims that a good brainstormer comes up with a hundred ideas per hour. The limit use to be in one hundred and fifty concepts per hour. It is also a good technique in order not to lose the track.
• Build and jump: A brainstorming session usually has different power curves, concerning the amount of ideas generated and the heat of the conversation. It is the duty of the “facilitator” to keep on the prolific phases in the session by asking to the participants for a new point of view concerning a given subject, or a given feature of the product. It is also necessary to “jump” for another subject when the energy starts to decrease.
• The space remembers: Spatial memory is important for brainstormers. It should a person in charge of writing the ideas down in a medium visible for the whole group. Kelley notes that old‐tech tools, as giant Post‐its on the walls or sharpie markers, have achieved great success. If you write down an idea in a certain spot of the wall, returning to that point may help to catch it again later in the session.
• Stretch your mental muscles: Kelley recommends to do some warm up before a session, specially if the group has not worked together before, when most of the group doesn’t brainstorm frequently, and when they seem distracted by pressing but unrelated issues. He explains some techniques to do that, such as do some previous group as listening to some expert speak about the subject, or going to a shop to look for related products.
• Get Physical: Use any available tools at hand in order to be visual with your ideas. This includes sketching, mind mapping, diagrams, embodiment…
(some of these techniques are widely explained in this Thesis). But also it is recommended to bring into the session any related object you may find:
competitive products, elegant solutions from other fields, and promising technologies that could be applied to the problem. You can also bring in materials to build fast prototypes.
Kelley ends his advice pointing out that brainstorming, as any art, must be trained in order to master it, but its benefits are uncountable. Being good at brainstorming changes the way in which you approach to problems, and helps you find faster solutions.
Rawlinson (Rawlinson, 1981) also points some indications for an efficient brainstorming session.
• Number of participants: Rawilinson recommends the maximum number of participants to be 20, so everybody has the chance to contribute ideas, and the minimum number to be 5, so the laughter‐freewheeling atmosphere can still be achieved.
• Avoid speaking in turns: Idea generation happens randomly, and as Kelley points out, there may be some phases in the session where idea generation accelerates. This must be encouraged and not invalidated by trying to make all the participants to speak the same amount of time.
