Optimizing Design Teams Based on Problem Properties: Computational Team Simulations and an Applied Empirical Test

The performance of a team with the right characteristics can exceed the mere sum of the constituent members’ individual efforts. However, a team having the wrong characteristics may perform more poorly than the sum of its individuals. Therefore, it is vital that teams are assembled and managed properly in order to maximize performance. This work examines how the properties of configuration design problems can be leveraged to select the best values for team characteristics (specifically team size and interaction frequency). A computational model of design teams which has been shown to effectively emulate human team behavior is employed to pinpoint optimized team characteristics for solving a variety of configuration design problems. These configuration design problems are characterized with respect to the local and global structure of the design space, the alignment between objectives, and the resources allotted for solving the problem. Regression analysis is then used to create equations for predicting optimized values for team characteristics based on problem properties. These equations achieve moderate to high accuracy, making it possible to design teams based on those problem properties. Further analysis reveals hypotheses about how the problem properties can influence a team’s search for solutions. This work also conducts a cognitive study on a different problem to test the predictive equations. For a configuration problem of moderate size, the model predicts that zero interaction between team members should lead to the best outcome. A cognitive study of human teams verifies this surprising prediction, offering partial validation of the predictive theory. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4035793]

[1]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Team Structure on Team Performance: An Experimental and Computational Approach , 2014, CogSci.

[2]  Timothy T. Baldwin,et al.  TEAM‐BASED EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS: EFFECTS OF DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION , 2006 .

[3]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  Human behavior and domain knowledge in parameter design of complex systems , 2016 .

[4]  Allen C. Amason,et al.  The Effects of Top Management Team Size and interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict , 1997 .

[5]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy , 1982 .

[6]  Paul E. Jones,et al.  The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms , 2000, Ergonomics.

[7]  Steven E. Markham,et al.  Group Size and Absenteeism Rates: A Longitudinal Analysis , 1982 .

[8]  N. John Castellan,et al.  Individual and group decision making : current issues , 2013 .

[9]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A survey of computational approaches to three-dimensional layout problems , 2002, Comput. Aided Des..

[10]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Group Size, Leadership Behavior, and Subordinate Satisfaction , 1989 .

[11]  G. Stewart.  A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance , 2006 .

[12]  Arthur S Blaiwes,et al.  Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment , 1986 .

[13]  Daniel B Wright,et al.  Calculating nominal group statistics in collaboration studies , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[14]  Fred P. Brooks,et al.  The Mythical Man-Month , 1975, Reliable Software.

[15]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[16]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[17]  Gregory B. Sorkin,et al.  Efficient simulated annealing on fractal energy landscapes , 1991, Algorithmica.

[18]  J. L. Dyer,et al.  Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art review , 1984 .

[19]  Jon R. Katzenbach,et al.  The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization , 1992 .

[20]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[22]  M. Mumford,et al.  Tradeoffs Between Ideas and Structure: Individual Versus Group Performance in Creative Problem Solving , 2001 .

[23]  Luk N. Van Wassenhove,et al.  Brooks' Law Revisited: Improving Software Productivity by Managing Complexity , 2006 .

[24]  G. Salomon,et al.  When teams do not function the way they ought to , 1989 .

[25]  Tilmann Gneiting,et al.  Stochastic Models That Separate Fractal Dimension and the Hurst Effect , 2001, SIAM Rev..

[26]  Siobhan O’Mahony,et al.  Nexus Work: Brokerage on Creative Projects , 2010 .

[27]  Jian-Bo Yang,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design , 1998 .

[28]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  TOWARDS A FORMAL REPRESENTATION MODEL OF PROBLEM FORMULATION IN DESIGN , 2011 .

[29]  Pat Langley,et al.  Learning to Search: From Weak Methods to Domain-Specific Heuristics , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  Temporal Distance, Communication Patterns, and Task Performance in Teams , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Sara A. McComb,et al.  Examining a curvilinear relationship between communication frequency and team performance in cross-functional project teams , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[32]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  The Effect of Communication Overhead on Software Maintenance Project Staffing: a Search-Based Approach , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[33]  Sara A. McComb,et al.  Exploring why more communication is not better: insights from a computational model of cross-functional teams , 2004 .

[34]  Benoit B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[35]  Sara A. McComb,et al.  An investigation of project complexity's influence on team communication using Monte Carlo simulation , 2011 .

[36]  R. Gooding,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship between Size and Performance: The Productivity and Efficiency of Organizations and Their Subunits. , 1985 .

[37]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Lifting the Veil: Drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model , 2015 .

[38]  J. Pinto,et al.  Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development , 1990 .

[39]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .

[40]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Design Team Convergence: The Influence of Example Solution Quality , 2009 .

[41]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Research Design and Statistical Analysis , 1991 .

[42]  Marjan Hericko,et al.  An approach to optimizing software development team size , 2008, Inf. Process. Lett..

[43]  Scarlett R. Miller,et al.  My Idea Is Best! Ownership Bias and its Influence on Engineering Concept Selection , 2015 .

[44]  Levent Burak Kara,et al.  Semantic shape editing using deformation handles , 2015, ACM Trans. Graph..

[45]  H. Hurst,et al.  A Suggested Statistical Model of some Time Series which occur in Nature , 1957, Nature.

[46]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Linking Properties of Design Problems to Optimal Team Characteristics , 2016 .

[47]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Patterns of Creative Design: Predicting Ideation From Problem Formulation , 2015 .

[48]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Drawing Inspiration From Human Design Teams for Better Search and Optimization: The Heterogeneous Simulated Annealing Teams Algorithm , 2016 .

[49]  M. M. Qurashi.  Dependence of publication-rate on size of some university groups and departments in U. K. and Greece in comparison with N. C. I., USA , 2005, Scientometrics.

[50]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[51]  Jacinta Secomb,et al.  A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. , 2008, Journal of clinical nursing.

[52]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Simulated Annealing and the Generation of the Objective Function: A Model of Learning During Problem Solving , 1997, Comput. Intell..

[53]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Utilizing Markov Chains to Understand Operation Sequencing in Design Tasks , 2017 .

[54]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  The preference effect in design concept evaluation , 2014 .

[55]  Monica E. Cardella,et al.  Analyzing design review conversations: Connecting design knowing, being and coaching , 2016 .

[56]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication , 1994 .

[57]  J. R. Wallis,et al.  Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology , 1968 .

[58]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, a n d M e t h o d s i n Organizations Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2022 .

[59]  Christopher McComb,et al.  FAIRNESS AND MANIPULATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ARROW’S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM , 2015 .

[60]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Team Cognition: Development and Evolution in Software Project Teams , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[61]  E. Salas,et al.  Team decision making in complex environments. , 1993 .

[62]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[63]  John T. Nosek,et al.  The case for collaborative programming , 1998, CACM.

[64]  Robert B. Zajonc,et al.  Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses , 1966 .

[65]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Rolling with the punches: An examination of team performance in a design task subject to drastic changes , 2015 .