References

Lectures

·      Reddy, S. G. (2012).  Week 3: Human Aspects of Team Effectiveness [Powerpoint Slides]. retrieved from QUT DEB601 Blackboard site.

·     Reddy, S. G. (2012).  Activity theory lecture [Powerpoint Slides]. retrieved from QUT DEB601 Blackboard site.

Readings

·      Belbin, R. M. (2010). Team Roles at Work. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd

·      Katzenbach, J. R., and Smith, D. K. (2001). The Discipline of Teams: A mindbook-workbook for delivering small group performance.  New York: J. Wiley

·      O'Brien, W. J., (2003). Collaborative design processes: An active and reflective learning course in multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Construction Education, 8 (2), pp. 78.

·      Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in Construction. Hong Kong: Elsevier

·      Brezillion, P. (2002). Individual and team contexts in a design process. Computer Society. Paris: IEEE

·      Sabre Corporate Development. (N.D.). Tailored team and leadership development solutions.

·      Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Currency

Podcasts

·      Trihn, Y. (N.D.) Deb601.10 Interview 01. On Collaboration. Retrieved from QUT Blackboard

·      Simpson, K. (N.D.) Deb601.10 Interview 02. On Collaboration. Retrieved from QUT Blackboard

·      Saunders, A. (N.D.) Deb601.10 Interview 03. On Collaboration. Retrieved from QUT Blackboard

Video

·      Sharma, R (2011, April 20). How to build a winning team - 5 best team building practices [Video] retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckEOQKmZPlI

Final Reflection our Team Collaboration

To conclude this Collaborative design subject I feel I had a rewarding and memorable experience working as a part of a multi-disciplinary design team. This was the first time since first year that we have done this, and there has been a dramatic change since. Team members now have knowledge and skills that are based around their discipline. I find this really exciting how much we have all learnt in three years!

On the whole we worked really well as a team. We began the project working as a group, but I think we eventually pulled together and started working like a team ((Katzenback & Smith, 2001)). It is a shame about Ind1 who impaired our collaborative efforts a bit, but it was a learning experience. I think the most valuable lesson I got from this whole experience was to be aware of your team mates throughout the whole process, not only when approaching a dead line. This was something that we as a group did not do and it cost us in the end. Issues need to be resolved as soon as they begin to emerge, not later once they have already done the damage. The other main learning experiences for me were;

1. To appreciate each discipline for the unique perspective and knowledge that they are able to offer.

2. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Even if everyone is from a different discipline they will still be able to help out in some way. Even if it is just in the way of encouragement, good team mates are able to take pressure off you and turn an unexpected situation into a learning and rewarding experience.

3. There are different roles that need to be filled, team leader is not the only one.

4. Constant communication is vital.

Why was our team a success? (Mostly)

We established a team leader quite early on. We were lucky to have one who was a very willing and natural leader. Without his leadership our team would have definitely struggled with planning and delegation, he kept us structured and efficient.

We also had two very solid team workers who were reliable and predictable. This constancy is very reassuring in a team environment (Belbin, 2010).

We all got along really well. Some great friendships were formed and this made it much easier working together. The team was very informal and casual, so I believe everyone felt comfortable sharing and talking to each-other.

I believe that we, as a team, made great progress together. Our very first presentation together was okay, the second one was decent and our final presentation is where I feel we really stepped up. I think the way we worked cohesively together really showed and I am proud of what we were abel to achieve. I don't think any one of us would have been able to create by themselves, what the five of us did as a team. It has been an extremely rewarding experience and it has been an eye-opener to what design is really all about.

Collaboration Theory- Reading

This is how I believe our team's progression from cooperation to collaboration (Kvan, 2000) took place.

COOPERATION

Informal relationships

Common goal

Minimal risk 

Rewards and resources are separate

I think we began as a cooperation up until our very first presentation. There was no risk involved in becoming part of the group. At this stage it definitely felt like any other group project with people you've never met. Usually once the project is completed each member goes their own way and there is no continuing relationship between the team. We did all share the same goal and purpose but we all worked separately. 

COORDINATION

Formal relationships

Compatible missions

Division of roles

Communication channels

Increased risk

Available resources, mutual rewards

After the first presentation is when I feel we began to have some coordination amongst the team. A team leader figure had begun to emerge and the formal delegation of tasks was taking place. We began communicating more outside of tutorial times and had started to share our ideas and progress with one another. 

COLLABORATION

Durable and passive relationships

Full commitment to common goal

Greater risk

High level trust

It was only after the team's first two presentations that we really reached a productive collaboration. We had all become comfortable with each other after the number of weeks working together. This made it much easier to communicate outside of tutorial times and to ask for help. The relationships had become sturdy and relaxed and so this made questioning certain things a team member might do, a much more casual thing without provoking defensiveness or them taking it personally. This was a great part of our group, we were able o offer our honest opinions to each other and be able to take feedback on board to enhance the end result. Early on we were all content with working alone but further on we realised the value in sharing, discussing and resolving problems together.

Activity Theory

This is my understanding from the Morf and Webber definition of activity theory from 2000.

At the moment I'm not sure how I feel about this theory. From this definition it seems like the opposite of what you would ever think. I would have thought thinking about the project first to get a clear understanding of what you have to do would be the logical way to go. It doesn't seem right to "do" things to come up with your goals without first actually thinking about it.

The Structure

(Reddy, 2012)

SUBJECT

Individuals who form the team and their skills and experience

OBJECT

The common project, the goal that everyone is working towards

TOOL

The design process, the steps that go into executing the project

RULES

Conditions and expectations as to how team members act (spoken agreements or expected)

DIVISION OF LABOUR

The delegation of work load and tasks to each member

From what I understand as I read through, this activity theory was very much applied to our projects during this subject. Activity theory is structured in a way so that each member of a specific discipline are each delegated tasks. The tasks are completed separately to the other members of the group. They then all come together with a higher positioned member of the team to discuss and share their findings and results. In our case our person of higher status in our team were our two tutors, Louise and Rachel. So because Louise and Rachel were our educators or "co-workers" these were the people we collaborated with. However, we did also have team collaboration without the educators. We had team meetings outside of tutorial times which were significant times of collaboration and team work. The charrettes were definitely points of productive collaboration in the way of individuals coming together and working with each other on the same task. Although this was directed by the educators it very much relied on collaboration across the disciplines of the student team members.

Tools that we used:

Facebook Group

We had an online facebook group which was a fantastic resource for our team. From past group work for uni assignments, these groups have always had a large impact on the project and assist in making collaboration so much easier and accessible. Although myself and the two architects were the primary users of this tool. Our interior designer was not much of a facebook user and so it was a bit difficult for her to be involved in our discussions, but this understandable. She did make a solid effort though in making appearances and checking the group for updates and progress. Our other Industrial designer is a regular facebook user. However he seemed to avoid conversations within the group and not contribute much input. In the final week of the project, it had reached the point where his absence from the facebook group was affecting the rest of the team and hindering our progress. As an avid facebook user it was expected of him to respond to any posts related to him. There is no doubt that this absence was due to the fact that he had not done his work. He was avoiding the group and not responding to anyone. This made it very frustrating as we, as a group could not move on without the work of our industrial designer.

Mobile Phones

These were great for communication inside and outside of uni. Before or after our classes we could message round and see if any of our team mates were free. This was great to be able to make the best out of spare time. Small meetings were fit in, where they otherwise wouldn't have occurred.

Paper

During actual periods of face to face collaboration within the team, one of the most beneficial tools that we utilised was paper. As can be seen throughout the images below they proved a real base that helped us to plan out our ideas and communicate what we were thinking much more efficiently than trying to verbally explain it. We found that having everyone being able to write or draw on the one page was a really effective system for us. Rather than having one person write and everyone else looking on, the collaboration became really stimulating and productive when everyone became involved. We achieved some great results from this and proved to be a great way of helping each individual have the same understanding of what was happening.

Community

I think this was a downfall for us. We did not have any connection to the community. We did a site visit early on in the project but that was as far as it went. The site was in Fig Tree Pocket which is where I live so I had some insight into the area. In hindsight I should have utilised this much more and taken advantage of this. So perhaps I let my down in that respect. Further investigation into Lone Pine, the street of the site and research into nearby childcare centres would have all been of a great benefit to the team. Another way in which we could have connected with the community is through speaking to parents with children about what they would want in a childcare. It seems shocking now, but doing something like this didn't once ever come up in a team discussion. I think this could have been a major set back for us. We failed to consider collaboration with the community, which for me now is a very obvious and advantageous part of collaboration.

Rules:

At the beginning of the project we did not establish a set of team rules. This could be a contributing factor to our team problems toward the end of the project. I suppose being in third year, we all assumed the best of each other. We have all had countless team projects and so we were all aware of the expectations. These are the expectations and "silent" rules of group work that I didn't think needed to be verbalised or made official;

1. To complete all assigned tasks by the deadlines given (or if not able to inform team members in advance)

2. If unable to attend a tutorial or meeting make team members aware of this as early as possible, and preferably give the reason

3. The three strikes and you're out policy

4. Help out other team members whenever required

5. Come with motivation and a positive attitude

6. Try your best and put in a decent effort

7. Listen to others and be open minded with others' ideas

I think these are very standard expectations and they do not need to be clarified. However, these rules were not completely enforced throughout the duration of the project. Perhaps this was because the rules hadn't been stated explicitly, so no one felt they had the right to say anything. Early on during charettes, Ind1 often came without the research and work which had been assigned the previous week. No one said anything however. This could be because it was quite early on it the project and so our Leader hadn't been completely established. Perhaps everyone was still a bit shy with each other and not willing to make a stand for the group. This was definitely an issue. This would have been where all of our problems began. Through giving Ind1the impression that it was ok to not do the required work and be able to get away with it resulted in a reoccurring incident that only got worse. Myself and Int1 were definitely team workers (Belbin, 2010) and preferred to avoid tension. I don't think Int1 really noticed the issue with Ind1 as she wasn't too involved with the final phase tasks of putting everything together. I had another team with Ind1 for another subject and so I, personally wasn't too keen on creating any friction with him. The two architects began to get quite annoyed with Ind1's behaviour in the last week. This was really the last straw for them. As can be read about in a previous post, the night before our final presentation it was extremely difficult to get work from our industrial designer. As a result of his very poor effort throughout the whole project, as a team we decided that it was fair to give full responsibility to Ind1 for the 10% publication. This was a good outcome for the team as it would make up for all the extra work and time that went in to making up for his poor efforts. Our leader took on the responsibility to inform Ind1 of this decision, which was good of him. I am not sure what was said exactly but it definitely got taken care of. If the problem had been dealt with earlier after the first signs, the final stages of the project would have run a lot smoother. Our team leader needed to be firmer and enforce the team expectations in order to obtain a more positive and successful team experience.

Division of Labour:

The delegation of tasks was very clear. Arch1, our leader did a great job in assigning tasks and making sure there were clear goals for the next week. The work load was very equal throughout the duration. Although we did have Arch2 who towards the end volunteered to do many of the jobs that could have been spread out evenly. Due to his perfectionist nature he found it difficult to rely on others and so took a lot of the load from others and put them on himself. This stressed him out and he couldn't cope with it all in the end. So tasks were distributed again in a manageable way. Arch2 needed to have more confidence in his team and believe that rest of us were also capable of doing a good job.

Object:

We all shared a common goal for the end result of our project, but we also each had our own individual goals which related to our disciplines. I believe we reached our goal in the final submission. On the whole, we worked really well together as a team and I think we all had quite an enjoyable time working together. I am happy with our end result and quite pleased with the way my landscaping experience turned out. I learnt new skills from this project that I am quite excited about, and I have no doubt that each and everyone of us in the team learnt a valuable amount from each of the disciplines and gained a much more informed understanding of what they really do.

Podcast- Amy Saunders

Landscape Architect Amy Saunders spoke about what she does aside from her day job as a landscape designer (Saunders, N.D.). I found it  a really interesting concept .

She works in the Brisbane community to work with public spaces that do not attract many people, when there is the potential to.

The are differences between collaboration with these community based leisure projects and Amy's day job as a landscape architect. Working as a landscape architect on a project is a very specific role and other people from specific fields are hired to perform other roles suited only for their training. In comparison to the activation projects Amy spoke about which did not involve people taking on specific roles to focus on. The projects attracted people who they may not have been necessarily looking for but they became valuable members of the project. I think this is because the projects would attract different people from the community who all shared a common quality of having an interest. I think this value of interest is one of the most important things to have in a team. They may not have any of the specific skills required but they would be able to offer vital, ideas, perspectives, insight, motivation and encouragement into the collaborative experience. A person with an interest can play the part of Belbin's team-worker and help to form an efficient and coherent team.

Spontaneous collaboration is less restricted and can form a much more valuable learning experience for everyone involved. People aren't limited to working only within their own field but are more open to working with others relating to other aspects of project.

What is a landscape architects contribution?

Appreciation of context

A greater understanding of the surrounding, not only the direct site

Appreciation of history and elements that may have sentimental or natural value

The problem with collaborating with landscapers is that usually during the process they are involved toward the end phase. When really they should be included and involved in discussion and planning in the early stages as they are the ones who have the deepest understanding and appreciation of the site.

Because of their absence in the early stages, many problems are not realised or dealt with until the end. this means things that could have been avoided or resolved early on haven't been, instead the problems are made worse and more difficult to solve, often with even more problematic resulting effects.

I think this shows the importance of actual collaboration which involves constant discussion across disciplines. Not just having different disciplines involved working on their own speciality on their own. But there needs to be common understandings across the board and problems should be solved together considering the impacts for all areas rather than just from a sole point of view.

The main points on collaboration from this podcast are:

To share ideas- don't be afraid that your ideas will be stolen. Your ideas can be made a reality with the help of others which is so much more exciting than keeping it to yourself and being to afraid to tell anymore about it.

Collaboration with community- getting ordinary people involved. Listening and talking to he public getting ideas, thoughts and feedback from people who you actually designing for and those who do not have a specific design perspective on things.

My Experience as a Landscape Architect

I have had a great time over the last number of weeks taking on the role of the landscape architect in our team.

I found it to be a really rewarding learning experience and my team mates were really good and helped out throughout the whole process.

Concept Presentation

I struggled a bit doing the landscape plan as I found it difficult to find other plans that I could look at for inspiration to get an idea of how they are actually done. Arch1 found some great online tutorials for me that were extremely helpful. This taught me new photoshop skills that I will even be able to use in the future. Arch1 was good like this, throughout the project he was always teaching me new computer skills and eager to give me tutorials when there was time. I was very grateful for this, I have certainly learnt a whole lot more about photoshop!

For the concept presentation I already had some great ideas to work with from the landscape charette. Int1 and Arch2 had been really motivated and done some great concept work for 2 areas of the landscape plan. It was great to have some of other peoples inputs to work with and took off a bit of the pressure to design a whole landscape with no experience.

Our interior designer designed and drew up this beautiful plan for the baby play area. Much of this was translated into the final presentation. 

This was the overall plan of our childhood centre with the building in it as well. From this concept phase there was much opportunity for me to improve and further develop the design. 

These are some of the drawings I did for the concept presentation

I found drawing trees and perspectives for landscaping quite a refreshing activity! It was quite  a change from industrial drawings which are very structured and precise. Landscape can be well communicated even through slight abstraction so i found this quite refreshing. It was much easier to express certain atmospheres through quick sketches. From the other landscape plans in the class I think that the hand drawn ones look the most evocative and engaging. In hindsight I would have liked to have drawn our plan as I find drawing much more captivating and enjoyable than working on a  computer. However doing it on the computer saved me having to rush through doing it all again on computer for the final presentation. This also allowed other disciplines to combine their work, giving a greater sense of the site and our overall design.

 

This is the final plan used in our very last presentation. It is much more detailed, resolved and visually understandable. 

Podcast- Kristi Simpson and Reflection on Discipline

Kristi talks about her firm which includes architects, planners, interior and landscape designers (Simpson, N.D.).

Even if there is a project purely interior design based it can be beneficial to invite people from other fields over to get other perspectives and ensure a broadly considered outcome adding value and insight.

  Intelligence into every opportunity

Ways in which Hassal gets different disciplines involved in a project:

1. "Launch Pad" at the start of each project- particularly large scale or complex ones, a workshop is held which invites the whole studio of designers and planners to be a part of. Brainstorming and group thinking session to flesh out ideas and establish a common understanding.

2. The physical set up of the studio. Different disciplines working within the same space to enable easy cross communication to establish networks. Working together and chatting with others is encouraged by work ethics and stuio set up.

3. "Landing Pad", takes place at the end of a project. To understand what worked and what didn't as a group.

Kristi was asked what perspectives she thought interior designers posses. Her response was; the ability to focus on people and the way they use a space, socially aware and their research base.

From my experience in a collaborative design team these are my thoughts on what each discipline has in the way of strengths and weaknesses.

Interior Design:

Our interior student was very knowledgeable about potential materials we could use. She was able to answer any questions she was asked about particular types and was always able to tell us if it could be sourced locally or not.

She had high quality research skills and was aware of potential choices and options available. She brought along interesting reading material for the rest of the team which enabled everyone to get involved and learn new things.

Our designer has a real talent in hand drawing interior perspectives. They were very evocative and had a unique way in which they created atmosphere and emotion. Her illustrations were very well suited to our projects initial concept presentation. Concept wise, in that they were not technical or highly detailed or resolved but they communicated the feel of a space very effectively. The drawings almost had a child like style to them which made them fit in seamlessly into our childcare project.

However, because of this strength in concept illustrations our interior designer was not as skilled in final end or computer generated images. This did not cause an issue for the team as we had two very skilled computer users. We were able to utilise Int1's drawing skills while teaming it up with the architects computer skills.

This a perspective frame from the 3d model of our childcare centre. These images were given to our interior designer so that she could render the perspectives to scale and accurately. 

This is the end result of hand drawing and computer generation teamed together. Photoshop was then used to insert the background thought the windows. 

Architecture:

 The two architects in the team had mostly similar strengths. The only main differences between their skills was that Arch1 was a very strong presenter and public speaker and Arch 2 was particularly strong in 3d modelling and enjoyed experimenting and being ambitious in what he could create.

They were both very practical in their thinking and had a good sense of the bigger picture. Their practicality however may have limited creativity a bit. Although arch2 was adventurous when it came to computer modelling, this is where all of his time and imagination went. He put all of his attention into this amazing roof that he had designed and this perhaps effected other architectural areas which didn't get the required time spent on it.

They both seemed to have a great understanding of the sustainability and environmental factors that needed consideration. They were also keen to include new and emerging technologies that no one else in the team had heard of. This was interesting for the rest of us as they were abel to teach us about alternatives and opportunities. For example the usage of hemp walls as the structure of our childcare centre.

As mentioned earlier both the architects had experience with computer image production. Arch1 was skilful in photoshop whereas arch2 was more talented in revit and cad. This was great to have a range of skills which could be paired together to make great final renders.

Landscape:

Not having a landscaper in our team and having myself (an industrial designer) take on that role has allowed me to have much more appreciation for the contributions that a landscape architect makes. From the things that I was required to do as the team landscaper, and all the other landscape work I saw during the presentations there are a number or valuable skills that offer that other team members may not obtain.

Landscape architects have the unique ability to plan spaces in a way that promotes an intended use or flexible spaces with multiple uses. This is similar to interior, but I suppose I have never really thought about the exterior in this kind of way.

They also have the ability to combine the built and natural environment. I think this is a special opportunity for them which other disciplines don't have much potential for this on the same kind of scale. I think just the way they are able to work with plants and nature, things that actually grow and change is something really exciting and can form the base of some really interesting and aesthetic designs.

Another thing I admire about landscape architects is their expertise in environmental conditions. Things such as understanding drainage, soil, weather and climate and the terrain and topography of a site. This all seams quite complex and I am impressed with the knowledge of these aspects that i saw during presentations. these are the things that I struggled with as a "landscaper".

Industrial Design 

What I think industrial designers offer in team collaboration is a strong emphasis on user experience. I think all of the other disciplines do consider user experience to some degree, however I think industrial is on a much smaller personal scale that really has the potential to evoke certain things. We learn to understand people's interaction and behaviours to specific stimulus.

Industrial also gives extensive knowledge about ergonomics and usability. Which is probably only lightly touched on in interior design with bench heights and reach etc.

It also has the opportunity to really engage people and give them things to interact with. It can influence learning as well as play and practical things such as storage and hygiene. Industrial design can be applied to everything from food, transport, entertainment to name a few, which shows the possibilities and versatility of the discipline.

Because industrial design is on a much smaller more intimate scale I think it is easy to forget about the surroundings, the bigger picture and how this effects immediate products. But this is the beauty of working with architects and interior designers. they are constantly there to remind you how the rest of the system works and to ensure every part is meaningful and integrated within the rest of it's network.

How To Build A Winning Team - 5 Best Team Building Practices

(Sharma, 2011)

1. Appreciation

Often people can leave teams or companies and leave them, not as a result of not being paid enough but because they didn't feel appreciated.

I can certainly relate to this. I quit a job because after 5 years of working there, i was sick of being harassed everyday to do more. There was never any praise or commending for what you had done. There would never be acknowledgement for when you did something right, only when you did something wrong.  So it is definitely important in collaboration to be able to say something when something has been done well, and to give encouragement and let people know they are a vital part to your team.

2. Belonging

Creating a unique sense of belonging to let people feel they are part of a community. Form a culture with specific values and interactions with people they enjoy being around.

3. Challenge

Grow and develop peoples skills within people. Give feedback and encouragement, inspire them to do better. Mentor people and make time to improve their skills. Growth is highly satisfying and will make people feel good about themselves and motivated to keep going and getting better.

4. Celebration

The team that celebrates together is the team that stays together. Micro achievements should be celebrated and achievements shared. 

5. Purpose

To achieve passion there must first be passion. Passion with employees is contagious to the customer. Workers must understand how what they are doing can make a difference to people. Once they know what impact they are making they will feel motivated to keep doing it and doing it well. Having a clear and bold vision for the future that workers and team can become  passionate about. 

From these 5 practises i think the most underlying primary notion is motivation and passion. Although these aren't one of the 5 points, through implementing each of the practises, motivation and passion are the desired end result. If a team is motivated passionate about what they do than the results will be far greater and have a bigger impact on what they are doing. 

For my group, doing a project based on a real life situation really motivated us. It made the project so much more exciting and it encouraged us to work harder to impress the client. I think this was a considerable influence for the amazing results that were presented by all of the groups. Also because  we were working in multi-discipline teams I think there was the feeling of wanting to impress the other members. I think everyone wanted to prove the worth of their discipline which was good as it made us work harder. As we did not know what to expect from each member in terms of skills and quality I think we all tried our best not to disappoint. 

Team DNA- After the final Presentation

I did this activity a few weeks into the subject. My initial thoughts as to which team members played which roles. How that group has finished completely, I am going to do it again and see which roles really stood out for certain people. It will be interesting to see if results are fairly similar to the first time i did it or if there are any noticeable anomalies. 

This time round i have selected only one role for each person. These roles are the ones that became evident during the end of our team projects, so shaped and plant etc were not really roles important during this phase. 

ARCH1

This is the same as earlier on in the project. Arch1 remained calm throughout he whole process and was really efficient in setting team and individual goals appropriate for each persons skills and interests. He was quite confident in himself and had a way of reassuring the team that everything was going well. He kept track of dates and deadlines very effectively and so was always abel to remind the team eg. two week before presentation..

ARCH2

This one was also true to model a number of weeks ago. This role became extremely evident at the end. Arch2 I think had troubles relying on other people and believing that other could do a good job. Which I suppose is a weakness but being quite the perfectionist, arch2 ensured everything at the end was done well. Polishing and perfecting was being done right before the final presentations which really was not necessary. He always opted to be responsible for printing for presentations. It took the load of everyone else's shoulders but it also meant while he was scrambling round doing last minute things none of the other team members had anything to do. He put unnecessary pressure on himself and ended up getting quite stressed out about it. 

INT1

Also the same. Int1 was a very focussed and dedicated team member. Although she mostly worked by herself on interior matters, whenever anything extra needed to be completed she was always happy to help out. She brought a peace to the team and listened to everyone and asked questions. She was very against tension or friction in the team, and when there were problem with Ind1, she didn't seem to be aware of it in the way everyone else had. 

IND1

I struggle to find a role for Ind1. He did not seem to fulfil any of the vital roles and did not see things through throughout the project. He was not constantly sharing ideas or thoughts with the team, did not offer to do extra work where needed and really was just a poor team worker. But I have decided to place him under specialist. This is because he worked souly on his own, doing his own field. He did not discuss or share his work with anyone and claimed the lateness of his completed work was due to his need to get it "perfect". 

(Sabre Corporate Development)
 

The Week of the Final Presentation

This week we have had a few issues as a team. Up until now we have had no problems, everyone had been doing their fair share of work. IND1 had been absent from all group discussions this week. It was never really noticed, but no one had seen his work to date. One week away from presentations this was realised by the rest of the group and became quite concerning. Throughout the weeks, people would ask him how he was progressing, and he would always say he was doing well. After this the topic would be dropped. But it has now become apparent that we as a team should have been checking up on him more and making sure he was on track or at least making a start.

Other team members rely on his work before they can complete their responsibilities. On the night before it is due, it is nearly 11 o clock and two team members are in the QUT computer labs waiting for IND1 to send in his parts so that they can put them into the presentation. This was after we he had assured us his work would be up at 5pm, I find this extremely rude. He has managed his time very poorly and he doesn't have the courtesy to realise it effects the whole team. His communication with the rest of the team has been a very minimal effort. It has been taking numerous text messages, calls and face book messages to get him to respond to anyone. If IND1 had just planned his time better and had been working throughout the weeks like everyone else he would be under control. 

Everyone else has been working really well together I think. The people with good computing skills have been able to help out the "drawers" of the group which has been really great. Dropbox and facebook group have been the two most beneficail resources to us a team. They allow constant communciation that everyone can be invloved in and of course the easy sharing of eachothers work.

Collaboration Process- Reading

This diagram (O'Brien, 2003) effectively communities different ways in which collaborative work can occur- good and bad.

1. Serial

This approach is simply one person doing their part and once completed passing it onto the next person so that they can do they contribution. It means team members have zero influence on what other group members have done or will do.  This approach would form a very disjointed, unresolved and poorly considered end product.

Our team never processed in this way. It does not seem logical and it would rely very heavily on team management, getting certain parts done by particular times so that everyone else has time for their part. This seems to just add unnecessary pressure and stress. It is not an effective way to manage time, as all the other team mates would be doing nothing until they're week of powering through their section. 

2. Concurrent

Different member working on their own tasks separately but at the same time. This approach is slightly better, as they would be opportunity for occasional communication and iteration along the way. It is not ideal for discussion or resolving problems as a team. This again, would form a disjointed end result.

For the initial and the concept presentation, this is where I would place our team. There was very little consultation during the process. Each member was very focussed on their own task and we weren't aware of what everyone else was doing. This definitely showed in both presentations. They appeared quite disconnected and didn't form part of larger whole. Each discipline was very separate, landscape, interior, industrial and architecture had they're own defined designs which were very reflective of the person who had done it, rather than a refection of the whole team. 

3. Integrative

This one is ideal for collaboration. It involves different members and disciplines to do a little bit of work before coming back to the team for iteration and discussion. Work goes back and forth between people throughout the whole process. This makes doing changes simple and drama free. It also helps the team as a whole to understand the overall project, and thus making their own contributions more informed.

I feel like we did reach this stage in the end. It took us a while, but we did get there in time for the final presentation. There was a very noticeable improvement from the concept to final presentation. It was evident that everyone had actually worked to together. Industrial utilised interior and they worked together to create a broader image of the system inside. Architecture and landscape worked together and used each others progress to enhance their own. We had architects working on landscape and interior perspectives which was great and really brought the whole design together. 

Examples of Collaboration

This video above  is a great example of team work and collaboration. Each member has they're own particular job to complete. It is not a way like Belbin's team roles which are utilised at different stages of a project though. There is no co-ordinator and no plant, but each member appears to be a team-worker (Belbin, 2010). In the early stages of this process there must have been a team leader, plant, implementer and finisher to have contributed in the forming of this seamless end result. All of these earlier roles play a significant part in achieving the final product. This video is like the final presentation of our project. All of the different roles and processes that took place may not be evident in the very end, but they did their job if the finished product is a perfectly planned and a well thought out result.

I think this one is a great metaphor for working in groups. If one person gets left behind and is struggling, the rest of the team should become immediately aware of this and stop what they are doing to help them catch up. Team members should always be aware of how others are progressing and if they are in any danger and require assistance. 

Podcast 1 with Yen Trihn

Yen was asked how successful collaborations come about when working across disciplines. I found it very interesting in her responding with saying as an urban planner there is regular collaboration with communities. This is a type of collaboration that is not really covered in this unit. And i think it can be equally as important as collaborating with other professions. Particularly large scale projects and professions such as urban planning and architecture. The scales of community collaboration would vary of course. An architect could collaborate with a primary school during the process of designing a library for them, where as an industrial designer would collaborate with elderly people when designing walking frames. I think it is important that collaboration is seen as a bigger picture, not purely involving the people working on the project but also the people in whom they are working on the project for.

Even with the most perfect tension free team work between different disciplines, the end result will always be influenced by how effective collaboration with the clients has been.

Being a part of a team as the designer amongst business people or scientists would be a much more difficult working environment i think. Below is a table i have put together to explore the pro's and con's.

Yen spoke about how everyone learnt how to communicate with each other. there  were times people were trying to say the same thing but just in a "different language". The different language refers to the term used that are discipline specific. Sometimes it is easy to forget that others do not have the same vocabulary on certain topics, but this does not mean they do not have an understanding. 

Designers work through a very similar process in their work. All go through different stages such as;

envisioning, cutting back ideas, brainstorm, inspiration and figuring out the detail.

Certain disciplines may be better at certain stages through the process. For example perhaps industrial designers are great at spitting out loads of ideas on the spot at the very start of a project and maybe later its the architects that have strengths in working on finer details. The difference between what designers do, is not in the process but in the product as the end result. This is a benefit of our design team. We all understand the processes and stages of how to progress through the project. This common understanding has assisted in the ease of our collaboration. If we were to be in a team of more broadly mixed disinclines, it would probably be a struggle to work together without a common understanding of process and stages. 

Strengths identified (Trihn, N.D.):

Planners- thinking strategically connecting the dots= organising, seeing opportunities making links

Graphic designer- able to communicate to the point effectively - diagrams, simple

Industrial designer- good at people! user experience and interactions scenario planning

Collaborative thinking: four key roles you need in your team

"Dialogue and the art of thinking together" William Issacs

1. 
   

   1. Mover 
   
   

   1. Without Movers there is no direction-  These are the people who actually do things. They get things done and motivate others to do the same. 
2. 
   

   1. Opposer 
   
   

   1. Without Opposers there is no correction- The people who spot the flaws in ideas and challenge and question why certain things are being done. This achieves a higher quality and more thought through end result that can be justified. 
3. 
   

   1. Follower 
   
   

   1. Without Followers there is no completion- These are the ones that complete tasks that are given to them. they may also finish off jobs that others have begun and not completed. They are reliable team mates and see things through.
4. 
   

   1. Bystander 
   
   

   1. Without Bystanders there is no perspective- People who watch from afar and view things in a different fresh way. They offer opinions that people working directly on a job wouldn't necessarily consider. 

I think with this methodology, it is possible for team members to play more than one of these roles. In my team:

Mover- ARCH1 and ARCH2

Opposer- IND2, ARCH2

Follower- IND2, INT1

Bystander- INT1, IND1

All of these are crucial for success. I don't think there is one most important role here. Although if one had to be sacrificed I would say leave the bystander. Particularly in a small group like ours. With only 5 people it is important that every member is actually "doing". Bystanders would be great for large teams where a logical well justified design is required, but here I think we need to just focus on getting everything done to a high standard, especially aesthetically. 

(Isaacs, 1999)