• How IDEO work?• Key Roles of Teams• Creating Effective Cross function team

Team up

Business model

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

FutureValue

INNOVATION

Team

Implementation

CREATIVITY

NoveltyUsefulness

Teams

Small group with complementary skills who hold themselves mutually accountable for common purpose, goals, and approach

McGraw-Hill

What about the team meetings helps to get so many ideas out on the table?Diverse team composition

Explicit role of process facilitator (not the boss)Communication norms based on rules of improvement: 1. one conversation at a time

2. stay focused3. defer judgment

4. encourage wild ideas5. build on the ideas of

others

Getting Ideas Out?

Subgroups & Mockups

Subgroups to develop mockups optimizing different criteria: Child-safe cart Theft-proof cart High-tech cart

Why subgroups focused differently?

Why mockups?

Narrowing in on a solution?

What changes in their process in order to focus on completing a viable solution?

Vote on preliminary ideas* narrows the field of ideas to be

considered * depersonalizes the judgment (ideas on board, post-its)

Leaders take charge to appoint advocates of design criteriaBuild a prototype

requires win-win negotiation; enables richer feedback on the

solution

Narrowing it down?

Types of Teams

•Task forces

•Committees

T-shaped person

What causes a person with deep skills but little wingspan to suddenly reach out to share information with her teammates? Namely this: empathy

Tim Brown, CEO and president of IDEO, alludes to the role empathy plays in the T-shaped person

We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they’re willing to try to do what you do. We call them “T-shaped people.” They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T — they’re mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That’s what you’re after at this point — patterns that yield ideas.

You can read more about what Tim has to say On Being T-shaped here

A Team-Effectiveness Model

Collaborative vs. Intellectual-Centric Responses

Collaborative Responses Symptoms of Intellectual-Centrism

Information Search Distribute attention to technological and user benefit information among both engineers and marketers

Focus attention on technological information among engineers and user benefit information among marketers

Idea Sampling Sample information across disciplines for marketable innovation

Sample information primarily from one’s own disciplines for marketable innovation

Idea Generation Generation of ideas from multidisciplinary perspectives

Generate ideas primarily from one’s own disciplinary perspective

Idea Editing Open to suggested revisions of one’s own ideas from people with different disciplinary backgrounds

Resist suggested revisions of one’s own ideas from people with different disciplinary backgrounds

Dissemination Stress Experience low stress when presenting ideas to an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds

Experience heightened stress when presenting ideas to an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds

Managing Conflicts in Work Team

Attribute conflicts to disputants’ personal qualities or experiences; prefer problem-solving strategies

Attribute conflicts to crash of disciplinary perspectives; prefer competitive strategies

Key Rolesof Teams

E X H I B I T 9-4

Chiu Cy, Kwan Letty, & Liou Shyhnan

Enhancing performance of integrative Research

13

How can developing economies leverage on cultural diversity to promote eminent creativity and profound innovation? Individual, organizational and national processes

Functional Diversity

higher group creativity

?

lower group creativity

cross-fertilization

inciting conflicts

Understand and promote integrative research

• Scientific and technological innovations often involve collaborations across disciplines and functional groups.

• Mixed findings for the effects of functional diversity… • We propose a model and the research it organizes for

understanding and promoting integrative research.

14

A cultural perspective to integrative research(Chiu & Kwan, 2010; Proctor et al., 2011, Chiu, Kwan & Liou, 2014)

We propose that disciplinary or professional cultures are like national cultures in that they are reproduced through institutionalization of cultural practices.

Professional enculturation:

1. Provides a foundational schema to structure knowledge acquisition, organization, and generation in a discipline

2. leads to Intellectual Centrism —the belief that one’s disciplinary perspective is the only applicable and valid perspective in the current domain of inquiry (Banerjee & Chiu, 2008).

15

Syndrome of intellectual centrism16

Definition of integrative research (Tress, et al, 2006)

Participatory

Multidisciplinary

Integrative

Transcidisplinary

Interdisciplinary

Academic + nonacademic

academic

Low integration High integration

Parallel

17

A model of culture and integrative research

(Chiu, Kwan & Liou, 2013)

Awareness of disciplinary

differences & presence of fautilines

Interdisciplinary learning and growth beliefs

Intellectual Centrism

Quality of collaboration and creative outcomes of integrative research

promotes hurts

attenuate and even reverse effects on intellectual centrism

18

Study 1: Effects of Intellectual Centrism on Information Search (Kwan, & Chiu, in preparation)

Experiment

Result1: Participant Major X information type interaction F(1.69)=5.57, p=.02

Professional Orientation Scale

Business

Engineering

8 Consumer information

8 Technology information

Generate ideas to improve check-in

system

Disciplinary fault line peception

Participants majorInformation type in computer display

Design task

Measures of eyes tracking

B E

C 4.39 3.90 t(87)=9.05

T 3.77 3.90 t(87)=2.89

eye movement time to attend to information

19

Fig. 1. Presentation of technological information (signaled by the symbol ) and consumer information (signaled by the symbol ) on a sample information page.

20

Measure of perceived value differences between business and engineering students : S(Ei - Bi)2/N

21

Disciplinary Perspective x Orientation interaction

B E

Market 4.39 3.90 t(87)=9.05

Research 3.77 3.90 t(87)=2.89

Result 2: The Disciplinary Perspective x Orientation interaction was significant, F(1,85)=78.66.

among those who perceived relatively large value differences between engineering and marketing, business students looked at consumer information 9.41 times more than they looked at technological information, while engineering students looked at technological information 2.31 times more than they did consumer information.

22

Study 2: interdisciplinary learning goal to mitigate the adverse effect of intellectual centrism (Kwan, & Chiu, in preparation)

Manipulation the salience of an interdisciplinary learning goal:

In the Difference Aware-Interdisciplinary Learning Condition, participants were instructed to think of five ways in which people in their discipline approach a problem differently from people in the other disciplines, and then to recall a personal experience in which they learned something new and important from an individual coming from a different discipline.

Result: When participants found it difficult to recall either experiences of learning from their own discipline or similarities between disciplines, they gave up ideas from their own discipline and relied on ideas from the other disciplines exclusively.

Learning

Disciplinary interdisciplinary

Aware difference

similarity

23

Study 3 & 4: Effects of perceived disciplinary differences and interdisciplinary learning motivation on quality of collaboration and creative

Perceived value difference

Interdisciplinary learning goal

Participnts

Study 3

Professional Orientation Scale

measure of the motivation to broaden one’s abilities through learning from others (α=.93; 13).

30 multidisciplinary student research teams (9-10)

Study 4 measure of perceived malleability of personal attributes

27 multidisciplinary student teams (4)

(Kwan, Chiu, Liou, in preparation)

24

  Low disciplinary difference

(- 1 sd) 

High disciplinary difference(+ 1 sd)

Low learning(-1 sd)

High learning(+1 sd)

Low learning(-1 sd)

High learning (+1 sd)

 Overall collaboration quality Study 3 Study 4 

  

4.766.15

  

5.105.65

  

4.125.73

  

5.346.41

Empowerment (Study 3) 

4.70 5.26 4.20 5.56

Task enjoyment (Study 3) 

4.70 4.84 4.40 5.08

Cooperation (Study 3) 

4.89 5.23 4.13 5.39

Creative performance (Study 4)

22.09 16.77 5.73 20.49

Study 3 & 4: Effects of perceived disciplinary differences and interdisciplinary learning motivation on quality of collaboration and creative

25

Study 5: Intellectual Centrism: Field Study at DCB (Liou, Kwan, & Chiu, in preparation)

 We interviewed and surveyed the administrators and scientists in the Development Center for Biotechnology (DCB) in Taiwan, a public organization set up to facilitate synergy of governmental, academic, and industrial efforts in biotechnology. Given that the DCB engaged both academics and nonacademics in integrative research, two subgroups in the organization, each with its distinctive values, were identified.The more motivated or mastery-oriented the participants were in achieving their valued research goals, the more strongly they felt that their organization should adopt the research development policies that were congruent with these participants’ value orientations.

26

  academics (research-oriented)

nonacademics (business-oriented)

Value clash between the subgroups was a frequently mentioned source of disagreement and mistrust within the organization.

Valued intrinsic motivation for doing research, emphasizing the importance of intrinsic factors (e.g., research interest, intellectual challenge) as the primary drivers of research engagement.

Saw marketability of new ideas and extrinsic factors (e.g., the feasibility and profitability of a project, implications of the outcome of a project for the reputation of the DCB) as the primary drivers of research activities.

different perceptions of what constituted innovation and preferences for different policies for managing integrative research.  

favored developing basic science instead of its marketable applications, and having global and predictable research expectations that supported long-term research,  

favored marketable discoveries and a research environment that allowed adaptation to unplanned contingencies through local, flexible adjustment of research objectives and scopes.  

Study 5: Intellectual Centrism: A Field Study (Liou,

Kwan, & Chiu, in preparation)27

Perceived need for

organizational change

Polyculturalism

Bicultural incompatibility

Aware of difference

Interdisciplinary learning

Interpersonal Benefits and

Costs

Cognitive-Motivational

Benefits

Meaning Efficacy Empowerment Influence

Cooperation Conflict

Study 6: Need for change X Bicultural Incompatibility X Polyculturalism: Field Study at ITRI (Chiu, Liou, & Kwan, in preparation)

28

Study 6: need for change & Polyculturalism: Field Study at ITRI (Chiu, Liou, & Kwan, in preparation)

Findings 1. When employees want stability in their organization, the

belief in mutual influence of seemingly compatible disciplines leads to more favorable cognitive, motivational and interpersonal outcomes for employees.

2. When employees recognize the need for changes in their organization, belief in mutual influence of seemingly incompatible disciplines leads to more favorable cognitive, motivational and interpersonal outcomes for employees.

29

High need for change30

Low need for change31

32

Awareness of disciplinary

differences & Presence of

faultlines

Intellectual centrism

Quality of collaboration and creative outcomes of integrative research

promotes hurts

Interdisciplinary learning and growth beliefs

att

enua

te

Increase awareness of differences between disciplinary cultures

reflect on one’s/ others professional

socialization experiences

reflect on how different disciplinary

perspectives can complement each

other.

Enhance awareness of disciplinary differences

Create an interdisciplinary learning and

growth culture

-increase affective bonding

-build intellectual

bridges

-reflect on positive

experiences & develop cultural

competence

create platforms to encourage exploration of constructive controversies and receptiveness to mutual influence .

Provision of induction and training, appraisal and reward strategies, visit and liaison , secondments. establish norms of IR

personal level, project level, feedback to the research institute. feedback into science and academia.

Policy implications33

社會效益

A 跨域整合研究績效

B 績效問題

合作障礙

機制缺乏

C 影響績效因素

直接策略

間接策略

學

產

研

a

f

c

d

b

學科 學科

e

組織面

執行面

規劃面

績效評估

前瞻規劃

政策工具

團體動力

計畫管理

學校組織

研發組織

政府組織

Project of Enhancing IR of MOST

34

問題診斷 解決對策 績效問題

 績效因素

 直接策略

 間接策略

合作障礙- 知識性認知障礙- 跨域學習的挑戰 智識中心論的障礙- 作業性認知障礙- 各方組織之動機差 異與利益衝突- 資源配置之衝突- 知識近用問題- 缺乏多邊互惠機制

執行面- 團隊正向動力- 計畫管理機制

由執行面解決合作障礙問題 A1 整合研究計畫與跨域團隊組成之審查機制- 問題導向之發題機制- 問題解決之領域整合性選擇 與評估A2 整合型計畫條件與團隊計 畫管理能力之評估與輔導- 團隊組成條件評估- 計畫管理機制訓練   由規劃面解決機制缺乏問題 A3 產業前瞻機制與常設幕僚 單位之建立及技術預測計畫- 常設幕僚單位之建置與功能 確立- 產業前瞻機制之定期推行- 針對產業問題導向之技術預測評估 

A4 計畫之績效評估機制- 現有計畫之盤點分析- 績效評估因子與模型確立- 績效評估與審查

由執行面解決合作障礙問題 B1 推動跨域團隊之正 向動力培養（訓練方 案與指導手冊）   由組織面解決合作障礙問題 B2 推動獨立之產學研究中心   由組織面解決機制 缺乏 問題 B2 政府組織之聯合授 權機制整合B3 法人研發機構技術中介之強化B4 大學之研發成果商業化機制B5 研發成果商品化之政策工具

組織面- 政府組織設計 ( 聯合授權 機制、組織績效之評估模型 )

- 研發法人組織設計 ( 「失去 的中間」角色、實驗室開發 角色、技術中介角色 )

- 大學組織設計 ( 組織二元 性、研發成果商業化機制、 研究中心角色 )

機制缺乏

- 欠缺產學連結之系 統機制

- 欠缺技術移轉平台 與機制設計

- 組織內部缺乏產學 動機差異之協調與互 惠機制

- 機制系統整合不 足，欠缺對未來應用情境之描述與廠商參與

規劃面- 產 業 前 瞻 機 制 ( 前瞻 規 劃、技術預測、技術評估 )

- 績效評估機制 ( 產學合作 計畫、學術科研計畫 )

Program of Enhancing IR of MOST 35

Project of Enhancing IR of ITRI36

Bridging the Missing Middle

Source: “The Missing Middle” (Philip E. Coyle, 2011)

37

Bridging Missing Middle38

TW policies39

3C 團隊作業劉世南 20130326

團隊形成找不同的領域的成員分工合作，計畫進度

計畫內容主題：需求在哪裡？內容：問題解決的方案與執行（有用的新點子）

創意歷程（ GPS ）Idea generation, selection ( pick up), selling將新點子變成好生意 （ business model)

Successful ideation

Business model

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

FutureValue

INNOVATION

Team

Implementation

CREATIVITY

NoveltyUsefulness

1. Feasibility: what is functional possible within the foreseeable future.

2. Viability: what is likely to become part of a sustainable business model

3. Desirability: what makes sense to people and for people

43

Framework of Living Labs

Touch Center

LL Team(Designers,

Psychologist)

Smart Living Technology(innovative/ forsighted)

Trend analysis

Real LifeContext ( where/ when)

Users ( who, what )Need analysis

Living Labs( Open innovation )

Goverment industriesCommunity( citizens)

Polic

y

business

Echo

city

Field

Tech forcasting/ validation

Better life( Well Being )

validation

44

Conceptualizing Living labs

Touch Center

LL Team(Designers,

Psychologist)

Smart Living Technology(innovative/ forsighted)

Trend analysis

Real LifeContext ( where/ when)

Users ( who, what )Need analysis

Living Labs( Open innovation )

Goverment industriesCommunity( citizens)

Polic

y

business

Echo

city

Field

Tech forcasting/ validation

Better life( Well Being )

validation

Human centric innovation !!

Operating in real life context !!

Sustainable open co-creation environment !!