Collaborative Design through Boundary Objects

1. Collaborative Design through Boundary Objects

2. Ex: Far-Flung Teams:Diversity MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES COMPLEX PROBLEMS LOCAL INTERESTS KNOWLEDGE CREATION & TRANSFER IMPLEMENT LOCALLY GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

3. Ex: SLICE Team

4. Example: Automotive Engine Manufacturer Co. Team Members U.S. Customer Main Office U.K. Co. Team Members Germany Customer Location Mexico Co. Design Engineering Group Brazil AIM: Design New Engine at New Location for a New Customer

5. Example: Electronics Manufacturer Cambridge Berlin Montreal Boston Italy Beaverton Bangalore Tokyo AIM: Improving Virtual Team Processes in the Enterprise

6. Example: BMW Palo Alto Munich Newbury Park Oxnard Singapore Advanced technology HQ Engineering Center Design Studios

7. The Challenges of Emergent Teams • Communications challenged(different specialists  different language) • Decision Process challenged (different decision-making criteria & styles) • Culturally challenged(different cultures about how to evaluate ideas) • Task challenged(problem definitions change so relevant specialty may change) • Familiarity challenged(don’t know each other very well) • Time challenged(need to be productive quickly) • Reciprocity challenged(may not work together again)

8. Problem • How do we help these teams overcome these challenges?

9. It is possible: Case of SLICE team Stress Analyst Manufacturing Engineer Thermal Engineer Injector Engineer Propulsion design

10. It is possible: SLICE • Designed new rocket engine in • 1/10th time (10 mos vs. 6 years) • 1/10th labor (<15% time of 8 people vs. 50-100 people fulltime) • First unit cost: $47K instead of $4.5M • Predicted quality level of 9 sigma (not 6) • 6 parts (instead of normal 1200) • Est. engine mfg cost: $0.5M instead of $7M • Never met face-to-face

11. Proposed Model to Explain Success: Value of Boundary Objects at SLICE Boundary Objects Stress Analyst Manufacturing Engineer Thermal Engineer TMS Injector Engineer Propulsion design

12. Different Way to Show Model Innovative Problem-Solving Boundary Objects TMS

13. Boundary Objects: What are they? • Definition: physical or mental models team members use to share knowledge that enables them to bridge different areas of expertise and learn from each other without all having to become equally expert in each other’s specialty. We are first focusing on prototypes as an example of physical boundary objects. • In short, they could be seen as anything that helps people to communicate with each other

14. But are all boundary objects equally effective? Characteristics of Effective Boundary Objects Faster Project Innovation TMS Development Characteristics of Effective Process in Which Boundary Objects are used

15. Effective Boundary Objects Boundary Object Attributes Effective Ineffective ? Ineffective Process of Boundary Object Use ? Effective

16. Exercise 1 You are to be in groups of 3 role-playing designing an information system to help people to cook at home. One person plays the cook specialist One person plays the database specialist One person plays the home/kitchen design specialist Go ahead and start the design process to create a prototype

17. Exercise 1 debrief • Ask yourselves: • What characteristics of the prototype as a boundary object made it work for communicating across the specialties? • What characteristics of your design process made it work for communicating? • What didn’t work • We’ll share these results

18. Our hypotheses • Sharing knowledge between specialists with boundary objects is like a learning-by-doing process • Guided Discovery Theory distinguishes better vs.. worse learning-by-doing

19. Our Hypotheses - continued • Boundary Objects • Force participants to pay attention to detail in the multi-dimensional problem and possible solutions • Make clear the boundaries on the problem space and those boundaries include team members’ expertise • Make clear the concrete consequences of alternative actions while leaving room for alternative interpretations • Learning Processes • Rapid frequent feedback in small chunks focused on problem solving strategies rather than the solution • Feedback and discussion that transfers generalized knowledge to specific examples and from the specific back to general again • Feedback that provides constructive action-oriented guidance about possible next steps that encourages innovation given the guidance.

20. Exercise 2 (if time permits) • Design in a new group of 3 a kiosk to facilitate the purchase of professional suits • One person plays the customer • One person plays the database specialist • One person plays the retail owner who must be able to maintain the kiosk • Use our propositions when role-playing

21. Research Plan • Year 1: Comparative case studies of from 8-12 emergent teams to identify characteristics of effective boundary objects and team processes • Year 2: Survey of 50 emergent teams each month for 12 months focused on temporal sequences and generality of principles from case studies • Year 3: Action research experiment to identify cause-effect linkages for matching boundary object and team process characteristics for fast innovative outcomes. • Would you like to participate?

22. Contact Info • Phil Birnbaum-More, phbmore@marshall.usc.edu 213-740-0744 • Ann Majchrzak majchrza@usc.edu 213-740-4023

23. Exercise 2 Debrief • Now evaluate the use of the propositions: • Which ones worked • Which ones didn’t • New propositions you would suggest Share your responses; Share your prototype if time permits!