2013
Creating Shared Understanding in Product Development TeamsHow to ‘Build the Beginning’Authors:

• Louise Møller,
• Christian Tollestrup
• …show all 2hide
  

ISBN: 978-1-4471-4179-2 (Print) 978-1-4471-4180-8  (Online)



How to ‘Build the Beginning’

Møller, Louise, Tollestrup, Christian

2013, XIV, 133 p. 74 illus., 7 in color.

ISBN 978-1-4471-4180-8

  Immediately available per PDF-download (no DRM, watermarked)

About this book

• Counters the waste of project resources due to ambiguity and lack of real shared understanding in the team by prototyping the project point of departure
•                                         Provides hands-on tools to involve users and enable the entire team to identify the right user need and scope of the project from the start
•                                         Forms a facilitation guide that not only describes and exemplifies the methods, but also provides readers with input and inspiration to plan, instruct and facilitate workshops
  

Development projects that span different disciplines and groups often face problems in establishing a shared understanding of the project’s purpose, deliverables, and direction. Creating Shared Understanding in Product Development Teams: How to ‘Build the Beginning’ uses research-based cases from TC Electronic, The Red Cross, Daimler AG, and Copenhagen Living Lab to demonstrate one approach to this problem complex. It shows how prototyping specific physical artifacts can function as drivers and focal points for creating the much needed shared understanding.
Encompassing both the participant’s and the facilitator’s point of view, Creating Shared Understanding in Product Development Teams: How to ‘Build the Beginning’ provides both practical examples and theoretical explanation for the process of creating shared understanding. This book provides a toolbox and a practical guide for planning, executing, and facilitating workshops. The result is a clear outline of how to facilitate the creation of physical artifacts that enables and stimulates communication between team members, users, and stakeholders in order to create shared understanding of projects

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Managing Large Pre-development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Characteristics of the Early Phases of Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Interdisciplinary Teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Key Finding: Prototyping the Point of Departure . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Focus of the Book: Creating Shared Frames in Teams
and Involving Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.6 The Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6.1 Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6.2 Complexity and Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6.3 Asymmetry or Stickiness of Information . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6.4 Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7 Approaches Toward the Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7.1 Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7.2 Complexity and Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7.3 Asymmetry or Stickiness of Information . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.8 Gaps in the Present Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.9 The Research Setting and the Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.11 Overview of Chapters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 The Design Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.1 Problems and Assignments in Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.2 Center of Attention or Value Criteria in Design . . . . . . 20
2.1.3 The Process of Designing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.1.4 The Design Perspective Versus the Early
Phases of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
xi
2.2 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.1 Meaning in Relation to Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.2 Meaning in Relation to Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.3 Meaning in Relation to the Creation
of Physical Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.4 Connecting the Theoretical Framework to
the Empirical Setup.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3 Workshop Cases and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.1 Background for Choosing Method and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2 Choice of Method and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 LEGO Serious Play: Development and Background . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.1 LEGO Serious Play is a Facilitated Workshop . . . . . . 46
3.4 The New Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4.1 The Design Perspective Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5 The Workshop Case Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5.1 The Workshop Cases Unfolded With Highlights . . . . . . 51
3.5.2 Workshop Case 1: The Guitar Pedal, TC Electronic . . . 52
3.5.3 Workshop Case 2: The Base Camp, Red Cross . . . . . . . 55
3.5.4 Workshop Case 3: The Social System Engineering,
Daimler AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.5.5 Workshop Case 4: The Medical Treatment Houses,
Region Northern Jutland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5.6 Workshop Case 5: The Good Elderly Life Part 1,
Copenhagen Living Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5.7 Workshop Case 6: The Good Elderly Life Part 2,
Copenhagen Living Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4 Identifying General Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.1 General Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2 The Significant Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3 From Personal to Shared Significant Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.1 Adopting the Personal Significant Models
into the Shared Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.2 Combining two Individual Significant Models
into a Shared Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3.3 Combining a ‘Concept Component’ and an
‘Experience Component’ into a Shared Model . . . . . . . 83
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
xii Contents
5 The Significant Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1 Making Sticky Knowledge Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2 Second-Order Understanding of the Creators’
Meaning Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3 Creating a Shared Frame in Relation to the Project . . . . . . . . . 91
5.3.1 Workshop 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3.2 Workshop 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.3 Workshop 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.4 Workshop 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3.5 Workshop 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.6 Workshop 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.4 The Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6 Personal and Shared Experiential Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1 Exploring Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1.1 Boundary Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1.2 Metaphors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.1.3 Naming and Characterizing the Significant Models . . . . 102
6.2 Personal Experiential Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.3 Shared Experiential Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1 Answering the Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1.1 Research Question No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.1.2 Research Question No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.2 Limitations of the Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.1 Limitations of the Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.2 Limitations of the Documentation Approach . . . . . . . . . 108
7.2.3 Limitation by Empirical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.3 Reuniting the Theoretical Foundation With the Findings . . . . . 108
7.4 Perspectives and Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.4.1 Perspectives on the Role of the Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.4.2 Perspectives on the Personal and Shared
Experiential Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.4.3 Perspectives in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8 Facilitation Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
8.1 Project Types and Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
8.1.1 Situation 1: Direction Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
8.1.2 Situation 2: Direction Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Contents xiii
8.1.3 Situation 3: Change and Adapt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
8.1.4 Situation 4: Reframe and Confirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.1.5 Other Situations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.2 Planning the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.2.1 Getting the Full Accept From the Manager. . . . . . . . . . 119
8.2.2 Practical Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.2.3 Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.2.4 Workshop Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
8.2.5 Facilitator’s Role and Mindset. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.3 Workshop Instructions and Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.3.1 Part 1: Skills Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.3.2 Part 2: Individual Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
8.3.3 Part 3: Building Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.3.4 Facilitation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
8.4 Results: The Outcome of a Team or Stakeholder Workshop . . . 130
8.4.1 Future Reference Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8.4.2 Ownership of Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

• Authors & Editors
  

Louise Møller Nielsen holds a MSc.Eng in Industrial Design, a PhD in Design andInnovation, and is currently Assistant Professor at Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark. Her present research is concerned with the early phases of design and innovation, user-centred-design and interdisciplinary teams. She has planned and facilitated workshops to?in private companies (Daimler AG, The Red Crods, TC Electronic, and Catapult Design among others), in the Danish social- and healthcare sector and for post graduate students both at Aalborg- and Stanford University. Besides her research and teaching at Aalborg University, she has also worked as project manager and workshop facilitator at the consultancy Copenhagen Living Lab.

Christian Tollestrup, holds a cand.arch. in Industrial Design and a Ph.D. in Value and Viosion-based concept development, and is currently working as Associate Professor at Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University. His present research is concerned with user-driven innovation, workshop management, and design based entreprenurship. Christian Tollestrup has 10 years' experience in planning and facilitating design and innovation workshops for Post Graduate students at Aalborg University. Since 2008 he has co-planned and facilitated large scale, annual innovation and entrepreneurship workshops for 400 Post Graduate Students in interdisciplinary teams at Aalborg University, a series of workshops on ”Danish Production 2025” involving companies such as LEGO, Danfoss, and Grundfoss as well as a series of employee-driven-innovation workshops for the healthcare sector.

Christian Tollestrup, holds a cand.arch. in Industrial Design and a Ph.D. in Value and Viosion-based concept development, and is currently working as Associate Professor at Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University. His present research is concerned with user-driven innovation, workshop management, and design based entreprenurship. Christian Tollestrup has 10 years' experience in planning and facilitating design and innovation workshops for Post Graduate students at Aalborg University. Since 2008 he has co-planned and facilitated large scale, annual innovation and entrepreneurship workshops for 400 Post Graduate Students in interdisciplinary teams at Aalborg University, a series of workshops on ”Danish Production 2025” involving companies such as LEGO, Danfoss, and Grundfoss as well as a series of employee-driven-innovation workshops for the healthcare sector.