Multidisciplinary team-based project work: planning factors

Abstract

SynopsisThe paper examines some aspects of the planning and practice of multi-disciplinary team based design project work at undergraduate level. It is based on a survey conducted for The Royal Academy of Engineering and The Design Council (which would be relevant to any design centred work). Pressures internal and external to engineering courses for the adoption of multi-disciplinary team based work are discussed. A number of key factors arising from the survey are addressed. These include: planning and supporting the development of team working capability across a whole university; the development of capability through consideration of task type, size, duration, disciplines involved, team size, roles and selection.Multi-disciplinary team based project work: planning factors AimThe paper aims to examine some factors involved in the planning and practice of multi-disciplinary team based project work at undergraduate level. These factors were identified from a survey conducted for The Royal Academy of Engineering and The Design Council in 1996.The significance centres on increasing demands from industry for graduates to be able to work effectively in multi-disciplinary teams. In addition the literature shows there are potential pedagogical advantages.The paper identifies the background to the area. Specific factors identified in the survey are addressed: planning and supporting the development of team working capability across a whole university; the development of capability through consideration of task type, size, duration and disciplines involved, team size, roles, selection and team building.

Development of a systematic classification and taxonomy of collaborative design activities

“…Extensive research has been conducted in the fields of psychology and sociology to analyse the impact of team composition on effective and timely team performance (Barrick and Mount 1991, Hurley 1995, Denton 1997, Willaert et al 1998. With regard to collaborative design teams, these issues can be divided into characteristics of the group, characteristics of individuals, team member relations, and management styles as presented in Table 2.…”

“…Researchers have noted that the size of the team should match the magnitude and complexity of the task (Denton 1997, Willaert et al 1998. Teams that are too large may become unmanageable and necessitate a support structure, while creativity may be inhibited if teams are too small (Willaert et al 1998).…”

“…Group Size (number) Willaert et al (1998), Hof (1992, Hudak (1992), Yesersky (1993), Denton (1997) Group culture (type) Hurley (1995), Redelinghuys and Bahill (2006) Individual Personality (type) Costa and McCrae (1988), Day and Silverman (1989), Digman (1990), Barrick and Mount (1991), Tett et al (1991), Kichuk and Wiesner (1997), Reilly et al (2002), Lopez-Mesa and Thompson (2006) Expertise (level) Denton (1997), Baird et al (2000), Broadbent and Cross (2003) Team member relations (level) Austin (1975), Azmodeh and Davison (1997) A review of the diverse theories (Costa and McCrae 1988, Day and Silverman 1989, Barrick and Mount 1991, Tett et al 1991) that have been developed to relate individuals' personalities and their performance in the workplace is presented in Reilly et al (2002). The five-factor personality model (Digman 1990) brings some order to the field of personality research.…”

“…The amount of knowledge or experience perceived to be required before making a contribution to the team may negatively affect productivity of younger engineers (Baird et al 2000). Varying levels of experience on a team, however, may facilitate success in innovation by combining heuristic understanding that may be gained with age with the optimism of youth or inexperience (Denton 1997, Baird et al 2000. Additionally, the type of design problem may dictate which areas of expertise should be included in the team composition, even while including several disciplines in a team both enriches and complicates many areas of the design process (Ullman 2003).…”

“…Furthermore, some design tools and techniques are better suited for certain levels of abstraction than others. Design teams may be better equipped than individual designers to handle this ambiguity because of the range of experiences and expertise present within the group (Denton 1997). Further, abstraction may be viewed as a positive aspect of design as it may enable designers to negotiate various problems while maintaining freedom in proceeding through the design process (Minneman andLeifer 1993, Shah et al 2001).…”