Are you better off alone? Mitigating the underperformance of engineering teams during conceptual design through adaptive process management

Teams are a major feature of engineering and are commonly thought to be necessary when solving dynamic and complex problems. Even though teams collectively provide a diversity of knowledge, skills, and perspectives to problem-solving, previous work has demonstrated that in certain scenarios, such as in language-based and more spatially oriented configuration design problems, the production by a team is inferior to that of a similar number of individuals working independently (i.e., nominal team). This research explores this comparison of individual versus group problem-solving within the domain of conceptual engineering design. Thus, a behavioral study was run with freshman engineering students, who solved a conceptual engineering design problem individually or collaboratively in a team. Results corroborate previous findings, exhibiting that individuals outperform teams in the overall quality of their design solutions, even within this more free-flowing and explorative setting of conceptual design. Exploiting this result, this work further considers whether adaptive feedback from a process manager can lessen the underperformance of collaborative design teams compared to individuals, by helping teams overcome potential deterrents that may be contributing to their inferior performance. Teams that are under the guidance of a process manager end up performing better than teams that are not in terms of solution quality, and almost as well as individuals, though not significantly different. This result suggests that process managers are able to mitigate some of the deficiencies in design teams. In an attempt to uncover some of the cognitive rationale and strategies that may be beneficial throughout problem-solving, the managerial interactions with the design teams are then investigated. Furthermore, to determine the reason of the collaborative teams’ underperformance, the effect of verbalization is studied as a possible cognitive hindrance. In the end, this work expands growing research on team problem-solving in engineering, and suggests that collaborative teams may not be optimal in every circumstance, but under the proper process management, can become substantially more effective.

[1]  Narda R. Quigley,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness , 2009 .

[2]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Design by Analogy: A Study of the WordTree Method for Problem Re-Representation , 2012 .

[3]  Bob J. Wielinga,et al.  Configuration-Design Problem Solving , 1997, IEEE Expert.

[4]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education , 1999 .

[5]  David J. Therriault,et al.  A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote Associates Test , 2014 .

[6]  L. R. Hoffman Group Problem Solving1 , 1965 .

[7]  Donna K. Harman,et al.  An experimental study of factors important in document ranking , 1986, SIGIR '86.

[8]  Vicky L. Putman,et al.  Brainstorming, Brainstorming Rules and Decision Making , 2009 .

[9]  I. Janis Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .

[10]  Sanjay Mittal,et al.  Towards a Generic Model of Configuraton Tasks , 1989, IJCAI.

[11]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The effect of incidental hints when problems are suspended before, during, or after an impasse. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  L. Bellamy Teams in Engineering Education. , 1994 .

[13]  Yong Se Kim,et al.  Analysis of Team Interaction and Team Creativity of Student Design Teams Based on Personal Creativity Modes , 2007 .

[14]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Should Teams Collaborate During Conceptual Engineering Design? An Experimental Study , 2018, Volume 7: 30th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology.

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

[16]  Colleen M. Seifert,et al.  COGNITIVE HEURISTICS IN DESIGN IDEATION , 2010 .

[17]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Role of Spatial Reasoning in Engineering and the Design of Spatial Instruction , 1997 .

[18]  Gary Goertz,et al.  Conflict management in enduring rivalries , 1997 .

[19]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication , 2002 .

[20]  S. Isaksen FACILITATING CREATIVE PROBLEM- SOLVING GROUPS , 1992 .

[21]  Julie E. Mills,et al.  Engineering Education, Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer , 2003 .

[22]  D. Cicchetti Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology. , 1994 .

[23]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  A Document Analysis Method for Characterizing Design Team Performance , 2004 .

[24]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty , 2010 .

[25]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes , 2015 .

[26]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Managing the impacts of non-verbal devices on idea generation: a new challenge for creative leaders , 2015 .

[27]  Likoebe M. Maruping,et al.  Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement , 2010, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Graham Thompson,et al.  A review of creativity principles applied to engineering design , 1999 .

[29]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[30]  J. Eichel Victims Of Groupthink A Psychological Study Of Foreign Policy Decisions And Fiascoes , 2016 .

[31]  Patrick F. Reidy An Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis , 2009 .

[32]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  DOES GROUP PARTICIPATION WHEN USING BRAINSTORMING FACILITATE OR INHIBIT CREATIVE THINKING , 1958 .

[33]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[34]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project‐Oriented Capstone Courses , 1997 .

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

[36]  Nicola J. Robertson,et al.  Surgery increases cell death and induces changes in gene expression compared with anesthesia alone in the developing piglet brain , 2017, PloS one.

[37]  Svenja C. Sommer,et al.  The Effects of Problem Structure and Team Diversity on Brainstorming Effectiveness , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[38]  Corinne Faure,et al.  Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process , 2004 .

[39]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[40]  M. Cassotti,et al.  Specificity and Abstraction of Examples: Opposite Effects on Fixation for Creative Ideation , 2020 .

[41]  Tudor Rickards,et al.  Creative Leadership Processes in Project Team Development: An Alternative to Tuckman's Stage Model , 2000 .

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

[43]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[44]  D. Comer A Model of Social Loafing in Real Work Groups , 1995 .

[45]  Andy Dong,et al.  The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication , 2005 .

[46]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation , 2003 .

[47]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Analogies and metaphors in creative design , 2008 .

[48]  A. Kazakçi,et al.  The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects. , 2014 .

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

[50]  O. Houdé,et al.  How minimal executive feedback influences creative idea generation , 2017, PloS one.

[51]  Lee R. BROOKSf SPATIAL AND VERBAL COMPONENTS OF THE ACT OF RECALL * , 2005 .

[52]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A neuroimaging investigation of design ideation with and without inspirational stimuli—understanding the meaning of near and far stimuli , 2019, Design Studies.

[53]  Davor Dujak,et al.  Conflict Management in Organization , 2008 .

[54]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Silence Is Golden: The Effect of Verbalization on Group Performance , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[55]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  PROCESSES Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[56]  Susan M. Lord,et al.  Enabling effective engineering teams: a program for teaching interaction skills , 1998 .

[57]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[58]  N. Maier Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[59]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Optimizing Design Teams Based on Problem Properties: Computational Team Simulations and an Applied Empirical Test , 2017 .

[60]  Eric F. Rietzschel,et al.  Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. , 2006 .

[61]  Shaofeng Liu,et al.  Engineering design: perspectives, challenges, and recent advances , 2009 .

[62]  P. R. Laughlin Group Problem Solving , 2011 .

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

[64]  Hicham Ezzat Leader for Creativity: Modeling and Experimenting Defixation-oriented Leadership , 2017 .