Mimi Nguyen
ABSTRACT
To identify challenges for future design collaborative systems, we conducted a qualitative study, interviewing expert design practitioners working in creative, multidisciplinary distributed teams The development of shared mental models, previously not examined through the construct of the CSCW ecology, presented four dimensions: task-specific knowledge, task-related knowledge, knowledge of teammates and attitudes/beliefs, where the latter one being the most vulnerable. The study informs the design of future CSCW tools for virtual collaboration tools to fully support remote creative teams.
- S. Kayan, S. R. Fussell, and L. D. Setlock, ‘Cultural differences in the use of instant messaging in Asia and North America’, in Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’06, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2006, p. 525. doi: 10.1145/1180875.1180956.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker, ‘Improving teamwork using real-time language feedback’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’13, Paris, France, 2013, p. 459. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470720.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. W. (Tina) Yuan, Y.-H. Liu, H.-C. Wang, and Y.-C. Tseng, ‘Gender Effects on Collaborative Online Brainstorming Teamwork’, in Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, May 2019, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1145/3290607.3312989.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Arias, H. Eden, G. Fischer, A. Gorman, and E. Scharff, ‘Transcending the individual human mind - creating shared understanding through collaborative design’, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 84–113, Mar. 2000, doi: 10.1145/344949.345015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Qu and D. L. Hansen, ‘Building shared understanding in collaborative sensemaking’, 2008.Google Scholar
- R. Klimoski and S. Mohammed, ‘Team mental model: construct or metaphor?’, J. Manag., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 403–437, 1994, doi: 10.1016/0149-2063(94)90021-3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. A. Cannon-Bowers, E. Salas, and S. Converse, ‘Shared mental models in expert team decision making’, in Individual and group decision making: Current issues, Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1993, pp. 221–246.Google Scholar
- S. W. Floyd and B. Wooldridge, ‘Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note’, Strateg. Manag. J., vol. 13, no. S1, pp. 153–167, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. P. Walsh and L. Fahey, ‘The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making’, J. Manag., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 325–338, 1986.Google Scholar
- K. E. Weick and K. H. Roberts, ‘Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks’, Adm. Sci. Q., pp. 357–381, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. A. Cannon-Bowers and E. Salas, ‘Reflections on Shared Cognition’, J. Organ. Behav., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 195–202, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. J. Kim, D. Engel, A. W. Woolley, J. Y.-T. Lin, N. McArthur, and T. W. Malone, ‘What Makes a Strong Team? Using Collective Intelligence to Predict Team Performance in League of Legends’, in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, New York, NY, USA, Feb. 2017, pp. 2316–2329. doi: 10.1145/2998181.2998185.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. E. Mathieu, G. F. Goodwin, T. S. Heffner, E. Salas, and J. A. Cannon-Bowers, ‘The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance’, J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 273–283, 2000, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Cash, S. Ahmed-Kristensen, and E. A. Dekoninck, ‘Supporting the development of shared understanding in distributed design teams’, J. Eng. Des., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 147–170, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1080/09544828.2016.1274719.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Badke-Schaub, A. Neumann, K. Lauche, and S. Mohammed, ‘Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration?’, CoDesign, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–20, 2007, doi: 10.1080/15710880601170768.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Stigliani and D. Ravasi, ‘Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking’, Acad. Manage. J., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1232–1259, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. E. Shalley and J. E. Perry-Smith, ‘The emergence of team creative cognition: the role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution’, Strateg. Entrep. J., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 23–41, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1002/sej.40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. R. Hoffman and N. R. Maier, ‘Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups.’, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., vol. 62, no. 2, p. 401, 1961.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. E. Watson, K. Kumar, and L. K. Michaelsen, ‘Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups’, Acad. Manage. J., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 590–602, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Jackson, ‘The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams’, in Handbook of work group psychology, 1996, pp. 53–76.Google Scholar
- F. J. Milliken and L. L. Martins, ‘Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups’, Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 21, no. 2, p. 402, Apr. 1996, doi: 10.2307/258667.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. van Knippenberg, C. K. W. De Dreu, and A. C. Homan, ‘Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda.’, J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1008–1022, Dec. 2004, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. C. Hambrick and T. S. Cho, ‘The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms’ Competitive Moves’, p. 27, 2020.Google Scholar
- C. W. Mills, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, 1959. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TdbtAAAAMAAJGoogle Scholar
- L. Hirschhorn and C. K. Barnett, The psychodynamics of organizations. Temple University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
- T. M. Amabile, S. G. Barsade, J. S. Mueller, and B. M. Staw, ‘Affect and Creativity at Work’, Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 367–403, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. 1967.Google Scholar
- H. Casakin, P. Badke-Schaub, A. Antonietti, B. Colombo, and D. Memmert, ‘The psychology of creativity: mental models in design teams’, Psychol. Creat., pp. 167–180, 2013.Google Scholar
- Y. Gong, T.-Y. Kim, D.-R. Lee, and J. Zhu, ‘A Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation, Information Exchange, and Creativity’, Acad. Manage. J., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 827–851, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Hackman, ‘Learning more by crossing levels: evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras’, J. Organ. Behav., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 905–922, Dec. 2003, doi: 10.1002/job.226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Mark, S. T. Iqbal, M. Czerwinski, P. Johns, A. Sano, and Y. Lutchyn, ‘Email Duration, Batching and Self-interruption: Patterns of Email Use on Productivity and Stress’, in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, May 2016, pp. 1717–1728. doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858262.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. H. Sonnenwald, ‘Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process’, Des. Stud., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 277–301, 1996, doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(96)00002-6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Rentsch and R. J. Hall, ‘Members of great teams think alike: A model of team effectiveness and schema similarity among team members’, in Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Theories of self-managing work teams, Vol. 1., US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press, 1994, pp. 223–261.Google Scholar
- C. Egido, ‘Video conferencing as a technology to support group work: a review of its failures’, in Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, New York, NY, USA, Jan. 1988, pp. 13–24. doi: 10.1145/62266.62268.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. L. Moreland and L. Myaskovsky, ‘Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 117–133, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. R. Dastmalchi, B. Balakrishnan, and D. Oprean, ‘EXPLORING THE ROLE OF TRANSACTIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS IN TEAM DECISION-MAKING DURING IDEATION PHASE’, Proc. Des. Soc., vol. 1, pp. 1529–1536, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1017/pds.2021.414.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Mohammed and B. C. Dumville, ‘Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries’, J. Organ. Behav., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 89–106, 2001, doi: 10.1002/job.86.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. P. Walsh, C. M. Henderson, and J. Deighton, ‘Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation’, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 194–216, 1988, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90012-X.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Ye and L. P. Robert, ‘Does Collectivism Inhibit Individual Creativity? The Effects of Collectivism and Perceived Diversity on Individual Creativity and Satisfaction in Virtual Ideation Teams’, in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, New York, NY, USA, Feb. 2017, pp. 2344–2358. doi: 10.1145/2998181.2998261.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- We're Still People And Not Only Emails That We're Sending - Shared Cognition In Distributed Design Collaboration: A qualitative study on distributed creative teams and the relation of communication ecology on virtual collaboration shared understanding.
Recommendations
Supporting virtual team collaboration: the TeamSCOPE system
GROUP '99: Proceedings of the 1999 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group WorkIn this paper, we describe a collaborative system specifically designed to address problems faced by distributed (or virtual) teams. TeamSCOPE (Team Software for a Collaborative Project Environment) is a web-based work environment that has emerged from ...
Creative practices in the design studio culture: collaboration and communication
For the purpose of developing collaborative support in design studio environments, we have carried out ethnographic fieldwork in professional and academic product design studios. Our intention was to understand design practices beyond the productivity ...
Barriers to virtual collaboration
CHI EA '08: CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper reports on the implementation and use of a virtual collaboration system - a virtual collaborative desk (VCD) that has been introduced to a software design team in an organizational context. Virtual collaboration systems are complex and can be ...
Comments