In a previous post, I’ve argued for the Need of Facilitation in the sense that — if designers want to influence the decisions that shape strategy — they must become skilled facilitators that respond, prod, encourage, guide, coach and teach as they guide individuals and groups to make decisions that are critical in the business world though effective processes.
In this post, I’ll talk about my experience of working in Global Teams, and share some strategies to help improve strategic collaboration while working in Distributed, Remote or Global Environments.
- The World is Flat (Really!)
- The Challenges with Virtual Meetings
- The Challenges with Design and Creative Processes
- The Challenges with Design and Collaboration Processes
- Collaborative or Distributed?
- Four Simple Lenses for Strategic Collaboration
- Strategic Collaboration and the “Tools” Lens
- Strategic Collaboration and the “People” Lens
- Strategic Collaboration and the “Process” Lens
- Strategic Collaboration and the “Artifacts” Lens
- Recommended Reading
- Many people still view telecommuting and geographically separated teams as a kiss-of-death to any hope of good collaboration or communication. But collaboration is a mindset, not a by-product of co-location.
- While the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to working in a virtual space, many companies also lack the skills, knowledge or insight to get the most out of telecommuting and geographically separated teams, finding it difficult to realise the full potential of virtual meetings.
- For the purpose of getting better strategic collaboration, it’s important to the distinction between two design situations according to the nature of shared goals: co-design (or collaborative design) and distributed design.
- In collaborative design, we design the solution together – establish common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integrate multiple perspectives in design, which depends on creating shared understanding.
- In distributed design, we work simultaneously (but not together), which heavily depends of managing tasks interdependencies.
- There are many other tools available for remote collaboration. More important than the tools we use, however, is our approach: for remote collaboration to work, the people involved have to want to make it work.
- Coordinating roles and responsibilities is inherently more challenging when you’re not in the same physical location. If you don’t check in frequently, your colleagues in other locations will lose track of what you’re doing.
- In a collaborative product design environment, multiple people in different disciplines (designers, developers, product managers, researchers, etc) should cooperate to develop complex designs on the basis of common consensus, trust, and cooperation.
- When it comes to teams, trust is about vulnerability. Team members who trust one another learn to be comfortable being open — even exposed — to one another around their failures, weaknesses and even fears, creating psychological safety.
- Design is a process of negotiating among disciplines. Solutions are not only based on purely technical problem solving criteria: solutions are negotiated. Therefore, it is important to establish common ground, negotiation and conflict handling mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design.
- One approach to get more constructive conflict handling is to change the game from arguing over positions to negotiating on merits.
- For teammates to feel more comfortable in global / remote / distributed environments, you will need to tools, policies and structures that enable raise Social awareness (who is around?), Action awareness (what is happening?), Situation awareness (how are things going?).
- You’ve probably heard me saying a few times, but I’ll say it again here: creating shared understanding is critical to good collaboration! When teams share an understanding, everyone knows what they’re working on, why it’s important, and what the outcome will look like.
- There is so much technology such as video conferencing — or the internet itself — so widely available, and yet, it is frustrating for many people. Why? Because people largely tried to recreate what did they in-person in their virtual meetings, since that’s the only experience that was familiar to them.
- There are more similarities between physical and virtual collaboration activities than one could think: Everyone who’s in the meeting needs to know why they’re there and what role they will play.
- In that sense, the structure around designing your meeting is the same whether you’re planning a face-to-face or virtual meeting. We simply need to tweak them to make them work on a virtual platform.
- In distributed or remote strategic collaboration, most of the shared memories are created during meetings. So, we must design meetings that optimise for memory by breaking up our conversations into meaningful smaller chunks, smart use of repetition, and the use of elements of surprise.
The World is Flat (Really!)
This might not have been necessarily your experience, but since 2005 I’ve been working with global or virtual teams in one form or another. What that means is that the organizations I work for try to make the most efficient use the knowledge and expertise of all parties involved — marketing, engineering, design, management, suppliers, production, etc. — in the design team, no matter how these parties are distributed geographically and organizationally.
Then COVID-19 pandemic came, and (overnight) everyone is working from home. Funny enough, I told a few people that this “working from home” anxiety was actually pretty normal when you first start working in distributed teams (“welcome to my life!”).
Sophie Kleber and I met recently at the UX Strat Conference in Amsterdam, and — in her talk — she captured a sentiment I’ve had since the beginning of this pandemic and yet it was hard for me to explain:
Sadly, many people still view telecommuting and geographically separated teams as a kiss-of-death to any hope of good collaboration or communication. But collaboration is a mindset, not a by-product of co-location. So long as that mindset is present, with a few tricks and the right tools, remote team members can contribute to collaborative activities just as well as the teammate sitting in the room with us (Connor, A., & Irizarry, A., Discussing Design, 2015).
While the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to working in a virtual space, many companies also lack the skills, knowledge or insight to get the most out of telecommuting and geographically separated teams. The sudden need to adapt working practices to virtual environment means that there has been a steep learning curve, and many are finding it difficult to realise the full potential of virtual meetings (Andersen, H. H., Nelson, I., & Ronex, K., Virtual Facilitation: Create More Engagement and Impact, 2020).
The Challenges with Virtual Meetings
If we reflect on our relationships, we would discover that meetings – in the broader sense of the term – are the cornerstone of our work and social lives. From two-person coffee chats to gatherings of thousands of people, we meet to talk, explore, and do things together. When we shift from in-person meetings to virtual, we observe the following challenges (Ozenc, K., & Fajardo, G., Rituals for virtual meetings, 2021):
- Our use of our senses changes. During a physical experience, such as an annual retreat party with our colleagues, we use all our senses. People without disabilities can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste. The music we hear, the food we eat, and the friends we see at that party can combine to create special moments. Research shows that we use our senses in pairs. For instance, vision and sound complement each other to increase our understanding of space. How we use our senses changes dramatically with the way most virtual meetings are run today. There’s an overload to hearing and seeing – and an underload to touching, smelling and tasting – which can lead to getting burned out. Without the engagement of a broader array of senses, we have less fulfilling experiences. To have more fulfilling virtual experiences, we need to learn how we can engage our different senses together when we are not in the same place.
- Tech is not quite there yet. Research shows that when people are using video conferencing during virtual meetings, they experience a different cognitive load. As psychiatrist Emily Williams described, with videoconferencing, we both have too much and too little: We have too much of the illusion of presence and too little of the information that comes with physical presence (Petriglieri, 2020). There can be slight delays that throw you off. We’re not sure how long to look, where to look, and when to do so. If you stared at people’s faces too much with videoconferencing in 2020, you’d experience this dissonance in a way that forced you to expend extra effort and energy.
- Social expectations are unclear. The year 2020 will partly be remembered as the year of awkward virtual social gatherings. The ambiguity during well-intentioned gatherings became wearisome, with countless awkward moments when people didn’t know what to say to whom. When we get together for the sake of a project in a work context, we at least have some sense of direction since there’s a shared goal of completing something. When we get together virtually for strictly social reasons, it can be hard to deeply connect with people. Up to this point in history, the intimacy that we feel with most of our friends and family has been mediated by the spatial relationship between our bodies. When we suddenly could not be in the same physical spaces, we didn’t understand how to sustain connections. In unfamiliar virtual terrain and without a clear purpose for social gatherings, we didn’t know what to do when we were together. And it was socially awkward to leave.
- Unfamiliar context disorients. The previous three challenges all contribute to a broader challenge: The context of virtual can be disorienting because it is unfamiliar and so different from what we are used to in-person. When people suddenly go from the familiar in-person to the unfamiliar virtual, it’s like going from Earth to space. When we meet physically, we know how to go about it based on our understanding of the context. While having a conversation, that familiar physical context fills in the spaces that we do not explicitly cover. It helps us understand the situation, read the room, and steer our conversations with other people. When we meet virtually, we can get disoriented because we’re not yet used to the context. In this unfamiliar territory, we don’t have the familiar norms and interaction rituals of the physical world. We don’t have subtle cues such as the full body language of a person to build a context.
Without a good footing, people put in extra effort to sustain interactions and conversations, which leads to strenuous cognitive load. Being in situations that lack clear purpose – such as many virtual social gatherings – can also cause challenges around emotional well-being (Ozenc, K., & Fajardo, G., Rituals for virtual meetings, 2021).
The Challenges with Design and Creative Processes
Any strategic collaboration takes work and being a global team takes even more work. But that is the challenge of global UX. Time zones, different languages, communication styles, and problems with gaining access to users become even more critical (Quesenbery, W., & Szuc, D., Global UX, 2012).
While this article is not an in-depth discussion on “what is design”, I think it’s important for us to have a quick overview on what I think are some critical activities that designers need to perform in distributed, collaborative, global or remote environments.
From a problem solving perspective, a broad range of activities may need to be undertaken with the major steps including (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002):
- needs analysis/problem clarification,
- information gathering/research,
- ideation/creative thinking,
- information generation/analysis,
- evaluation, and
From a creativity perspective, Shneiderman (2000) talks about the challenges that tools need to address to enable users to be more creative. His Genex Framework (generator of excellence) proposal consists of four phases:
- Collect: learn from previous works stored in libraries, the Web, etc.
- Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle, and late stages;
- Create: explore, compose, evaluate possible solutions; and;
- Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the libraries.
Within this framework, Shneiderman proposes eight activities software tools should support:
- Searching and browsing digital libraries;
- Visualizing data and processes;
- Consulting with Peers/mentors;
- Thinking by free association;
- Exploring solutions (“what-if” tools);
- Composing artifacts and performances;
- Reviewing versions;
- Disseminating Results.
The Challenges with Design and Collaboration Processes
Collaboration is an activity where a large task is achieved by a team. Often the task is only achievable when the collective resources are assembled. Contributions to the work are negotiated and mediated through communications and sharing of knowledge. Successful strategic collaboration requires effectiveness in a number of areas (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002):
- Creating shared understanding,
- developing shared memories and meaning,
- negotiation and conflict handling,
- communication of data, knowledge, information,
- planning of activities, tasks, methodologies,
- management of tasks.
When work is distributed around teams with different cultures, economic conditions, and time zones it is that much more difficult to stay focused on user needs and carry high quality design validation. But it isn’t impossible (Quesenbery, W., & Szuc, D., Global UX, 2012).
Collaborative or Distributed?
Globalization of development processes is based on the principle of making the most efficient use of resources possible for whatever task needs to be done. In product design, this principle means exploiting the knowledge and expertise of all parties involved, including marketing, engineering, design, management, suppliers, production, etc., in the design team, no matter how these parties are distributed geographically and organizationally (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002). The same logic applies to software development
In response to this increasing need to assist collective work in an information technology context, recent studies have shifted their foci toward cooperative work, concerning to the creation of new technical-organizational systems, which support collective work, greater interaction between design stakeholders, as well as capitalization and reuse of design knowledge (Détienne, 2006).
Falzon (Falzon, Montmollin, & Béguin, 1996) has stressed out a distinction between two design situations according to the nature of shared goals: co-design (or collaborative design) and distributed design.
In Collaborative design, design partners develop the solution together – they share an identical goal and contribute to reach it through their specific competences, they do this with very strong constraints of direct cooperation in order to guarantee the success of the problem resolution. The competence of the partners can vary depending on the level of competence (e.g. interaction between designers of different seniority) or on the type of competence (e.g. interaction between drafters and engineers). Design solutions are not only based on purely technical problem solving criteria. They also result from compromises between designers: solutions are negotiated.
In Distributed Design, the actors of the design who are simultaneously (but not together) involved on the same cooperation process carry out well determined tasks. Such tasks having been allocated beforehand, and they pursue goals (or at least sub-goals) that are specific to them and have as an objective to participate as efficiently as possible in the collective resolution of the problem. Distributed design is typical for concurrent engineering in which the various sides of the production system must function in strong synergy during the product development cycle.
Since the distribution of tasks has been identified as means of minimizing software development risks, let’s analyze the current interaction design process at through Distributed Design perspective. Lang, Dickinson and Buchal’s Cognitive Factors in Distributed Design seem an appropriate framework to start with, which divides the design process through distributed teams into 5 areas, namely design methodology, collaboration, teamwork, knowledge management and design representation.
Merging the both previously mentioned frameworks (Shneiderman’s Genex, and Lang, Dickinson and Buchal’s Cognitive Factors in Distributed Design) allowed me to capture enough aspects of the design process in distributed teams.
Four Simple Lenses for Strategic Collaboration
The way I’ve looked that this problem was to decompose it in four aspects:
Strategic Collaboration and the “Tools” Lens
Mention the word “collaboration” to businesspeople today and they immediately think you’re going to talk about software. The tech world is boring over with new tools that enable groups large and small to instantly and easily share complex information and that facilitate and track contributions from many participants. But true collaboration requires more than handy applications – in fact, the same tools can just as easily derail or outright destroy collaboration (Abele, J., “Bringing minds together” in Harvard Business Review, 2011)
I’ve been working on the software industry for more than 20 years now, and I’ve seen lots of tools come and go. And I’ve heard so many teams say “if only we could use [ENTER LATEST COOL/HIP TOOL HERE] we would be more effective”… just to see that tool fade out a few years.
So, when I hear someone suggesting introducing a new tool, my first reaction is to ask them how will this new cool/hip tool allow us to…
- Prototype / Simulate
- Explore of Solutions
- Support our Creative Thinking & Ideation processes
- Support our Visualizing Data & Processes
- Asynchronously Collaborate
There are many other tools available for remote collaboration, and more being released almost daily. Because of the reality that many coworkers aren’t actually co-located, many companies are looking for making collaboration from separate locations as much like being in the same room as possible. More important than the tools we use, however, is our approach (Connor, A., & Irizarry, A., Discussing Design, 2015).
Research by Harvard Business School published in 2018 found that in acknowledge work context — where there is discovery and innovation taking place — organizations that had everyone talking to everyone else all the time actually performed worse than in situations where teams or groups of people communicated and collaborated on a more occasional basis (Bernstein, E., Shore, J., & Lazer, D., 2018). This supports the idea that we actually need to create more purposeful interactions between teams (Skelton, M., & Pais, M. Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working. 2022)
In a remote work context, we tend to see the opposite: intentional communications between teams can drastically diminish in favor of a “broadcasting approach to information sharing. Regardless of whether we’re over or under communicating, we can enable effective teams by being more purposeful about the type of communication and the type of interactions that we have with other groups in the organization, and, therefore, we can achieve better outcomes. The key is to have well-defined interactions between each of the teams whether they are colocated or remote (Skelton, M., & Pais, M. Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working. 2022)
If you’re part of a team, ideally your team leader will coordinate a conversation around how you will use the tools that you’ve identified. If you’re working in a looser arrangement, it probably doesn’t make sense to work out detailed rules, but you can still take the lead to clarify a few key items (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- Venue: Which interactions belong on the phone, in e-mail, and so on?
- Availability: How responsive will you be on each of these tools? How will you get in touch if something’s truly sgent?
- Meetings: Who will set up and lead conference call or host video chats? How will you get the call-in number and handouts in advance? If you’re the only person calling in, who will introduce you? If the whole meeting is virtual, how will all of you identify yourselves when you speak?
- Version control: How will you make sure that you and your colleagues are working efficiently and without redundancy? When sometime goes wrong, who will be responsible for fixing the problem?
- Coordination: Which materials or tools do you need to synchronise? Who will set up and manage shared technologies?
- Sensitive material: How will you safely share and store sensitive or proprietary material?
- Politeness and privacy: What does good behaviour look like with each of these technologies? For example, can you call a colleague without an appointment? How ill you avoid interrupting each other on a video chat if there is a delay?
My recommended approach for introducing new tools is to integrate first before replacing: if your current tool set already supports (let’s say) 3 of 4 steps of your current workflow, what tool can you add without replacing the existing tool set? The way to think about this is to look of the cost of strategic collaboration (not just the cost of the licenses themselves), such as:
- Cost of training: How much training material / community is available? How smooth is the learning curve of the new tool?
- Cost of integrating: How much disruption will integrating new tools is going to cost? Will our current stakeholders need access to the new tools? How will our current assets be accessed in the new environment / tool? How long/risky will be the process of approval of the new tool (IT security/Intellectual Property Protection, etc.)?
- Cost of producing and sharing assets: How much it was going to cost to refactor your internal/old/existing libraries? Will we just import on the existing assets in the new tool? Will we need to re-create the assets in the new tool?
Strategic Collaboration and the “People” Lens
When I hear designers complaining they can’t get their design accross, the conversation usually goes like”if only the [INSERT THE NAME OF A STAKEHOLDER] would listen to me!”
While I can understand their frustration, I usually recommend to step back and take a look at the dynamics of their team, and how have they ben set up for success (or not!) by looking at the different aspects of teamwork:
- Shared Design Workspaces
- Roles and Responsibilities
- Ownership / Commitment / Trust
- Social / Action / Situation Awareness
Team members have to believe in the importance of collaboration, be conscious of the differences being remorse poses, and address them together. So long as our team is dedicated to making critique and collaboration work in remote settings, we will find a way (Connor, A., & Irizarry, A., Discussing Design, 2015)
Shared Design Workspaces
Shared design workspaces can also positively contribute to team spirit for distributed groups by further enhancing the feeling that members are contributing to the group effort (Saad and Maher 1996), by providing everyone with the same interface to the project’s shared design forms. Shared design workspaces also often becoming another tool for making distributed team communication richer.
Shared design workspaces are required that can support team collaboration in both virtual and face- to-face situations. In particular, this requires the design of meeting rooms or virtual conferencing tools with a shared data display and multiple user interfaces so that team members can interact with the digital design space as well as with each other (Schrage, 1995). For distributed teams, virtual meeting rooms with multiple modes of communication are required. For example, rooms with both a shared electronic whiteboard and video conferencing would give all members access to the whiteboard while others view both the contents of the whiteboard and how the current speaker is interacting (gestures, facial cues, etc.) with those contents.
Finally, shared design workspaces can also positively contribute to team spirit (learn more about on Ownership, Commitment, and Trust) for distributed groups by further enhancing the feeling that members are contributing to the group effort, by providing everyone with the same interface to the project’s shared design artifacts. Shared design workspaces also often becoming another tool for making distributed team communication richer (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002).
We’ve mentioned a few remote whiteboard or sketchboard tools that enable groups of people to make contributions to public memory in real time. Technology, however, is not always going to be consistent for everyone. If you are collaboratively sketching ideas, some may be able to draw using a mouse or a smart pen–type tool or tablet, while others may not. If you’ve got webcams working, you can always have everyone sketch in their own spaces using a thick line, black marker and paper, or 3 x 5 cards. The cards are better to hold up to the camera without flopping over. No matter how bad the video connection, thick, black-line sketches on a white background will always be clear (Hoffman, K. M., Meeting Design: For Managers, Makers, and Everyone, 2018).
Roles and Responsibilities
Team members often naturally assume different ‘‘roles’’ to assist in the communication process inside and outside team boundaries. These roles include facilitating or mediating intra- and inter-team discussion as well as acting as spokespeople for the team with company or enterprise representatives (Sonnenwald, 1996).
Understanding and facilitating these communication roles can result in better team harmony, more support from leadership and better co-operation with external partners. Thus, when designing tools to support design groups, consideration should be given to what sort of communication roles will often be performed while or after using the tool in question and efforts made to facilitate those communication roles (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002).
Execution is the result of thousands of decisions made every day by employees acting according to the information they have and their own self-interest. In their work helping more than 250 companies learn to execute more effectively, Neilson, G., Martin, K., Powers, E., identified four fundamental building blocks executives can use to influence those actions—clarifying decision rights, designing information flows, aligning motivators, and making changes to structure (Neilson, G., Martin, K., Powers, E., 2008):
- who owns each decision
- who must provide input
- who is ultimately accountable for the results
- how results are defined
Coordinating roles and responsibilities is inherently more challenging when you’re not in the same physical location. If you don’t check in frequently, your colleagues in other locations will lose track of what you’re doing (and vice-versa). But sending multiple messages to multiple recipients on multiple channels can create infusion and make it hard to tack progress. To organize who does what take the following steps (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- Simplify the work: streamline things as much as you can, and agree on who ultimately own each task. If you aren’t in a position to influence these decisions, talk one-on-one with the people you’ll be working with most directly to make sure that you’re all on the same page. If necessary press your boss for more direction — and suggest the changes you would like to see.
- Have each person share a “role card”: Itemise important information such as the person’s title, general responsibilities, work schedule, close collaborators, and the key tasks, decisions, deliverables, and milestones the individual is attached to. These “cards” could be individual documents, email, or entries in a shared work or message board. Review the inform briefly during a meeting to clear up any misunderstanding.
- Agree on protocols: guidelines are needed for important activities such as group decisions, tracking progress, and sharing updates. Consider these questions: Who is the group needs to be involved in each of these activities? Which communication technologies will you use for each of these activities? If you lack the authority to lead this conversation, pose these questions to your supervisor with respect to yourself: What activities do I need to be involved in? How should I share updates during a meeting? I’d like to…
The Team Canvas
The Team Canvas is a strategic framework that helps bring team members on the same page. Based on our experience with startup teams and creative agencies, it is made to align teams, increase cohesion and performance and to create productive team culture, fast. Team Canvas works across multiple touchpoints (Ivanov, A.,The Team Canvas 2015):
- creating a team;
- clarifying goals and addressing overall team performance (e.g. when you feel stuck as a team, or when you need to get a lot of stuff done);
- growing and onboarding new team members;
- general alignment sessions (recommended every 2-3 months).
The RACI Matrix
One of the most popular tools for clarifying roles as responsibilities is a RACI Matrix — also known as a responsibility-assignment matri — which outlines how individuals with different specializations will participate in tasks such as work phases (Kaley, A., Setting UX roles and responsibilities in product development, 2022).
Each person or role has its own column and each phase, activity, or deliverable has an individual row. Each cell in the matrix specifies the involvement of the corresponding party with the task. The involvement is specified through one of the four letters R (Responsible), A (Accountable), C (Consulted), and I (Informed) — hence the acronym RACI. For example, in the RACI above, the product manager is responsible and accountable for the task of defining objectives and key results, whereas the UX/product designer and the engineering teams should be consulted. Overall role involvement at the phase level is based on the type of participation that appears most for activities and deliverables therein (Kaley, A., Setting UX roles and responsibilities in product development, 2022).
The four levels of role involvement for any given task (whether a product-development phase, an activity, or the creation of a deliverable) are defined as follows (Kaley, A., Setting UX roles and responsibilities in product development, 2022):
- R= Responsible: The role(s) or team member completes the task. There can be more than one person responsible for any task in product development. For example, a user researcher might be responsible for running a quantitative usability test, as part of the iteration and optimization phase of product development.
- A= Accountable: The person provides final review and determines whether and when the task is completed. For each task, there should be only one accountable person. Accountability is essential for an organization and team. Without it, it’s difficult to get people to take ownership and get things done. In some cases, the accountable person is also responsible for completing the work or deliverable. For example, when running a usability test, a UX lead or researcher might be accountable for the overall completion of the study, while also responsible for recruitment, preparing the study protocol, facilitating sessions, and analyzing results. During each testing session, a product manager and engineer might share responsibility for taking notes.
- C= Consulted: The role(s) provides input and expertise on the task. There are usually multiple people from various disciplines and levels marked with a C in the RACI, depending on the phase of product development and activities involved. In our example usability test, a UX manager might be consulted by the UX lead to get feedback on the study protocol and understand if there are any other peers on the UX team who would benefit from the research findings.
- I= Informed: The role(s) are kept aware of progress as the task is worked on. Like the responsible and consulted roles, there are often many roles kept informed, including stakeholders, leadership, and other product teams who may be impacted by the work. Informed parties could also include people from customer support, legal, operations, marketing, human resources, and in smaller organizations, the CEO.
RACI is particularly helpful while teams set strategic context and plan discovery research. During these phases in product development, it’s very common that roles are left out and responsibilities are unclear. The RACI can clarify common questions such as (Kaley, A., Setting UX roles and responsibilities in product development, 2022):
- Who’s involved in setting the vision, goals, strategy, and roadmap?
- How can we weigh in on prioritization and sequencing?
- Can we be involved in product planning?
- Who’s responsible for user or stakeholder interviews?
- Who should be involved in competitive analysis and usability testing?
- Who’s running this workshop or ideation session? Who else should be involved?
- Who’s making final design decisions? Who needs to weigh in?
Ownership, Commitment and Trust
Trust is the life blood for collaboration. To create and sustain the conditions for long-lasting connections, you have to be able to trust others, they have to trust you, and they have to trust each other (Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z., Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations, 2017).
In a collaborative product design environment, multiple designers in different disciplines and from different enterprises cooperate to develop a complex design on the basis of common consensus, trust, and cooperation (Chen, Chen, & Chu, 2008).
Commitment to action is built on participation and ownership. Organizations and business scholars have long puzzled over how to incentivize this sense of ownership, which is central to building commitment to action. Stock ownership plans, performance-based pay, and related schemes have all been tried. These have merit, but in the end, monetary rewards matter less to individuals than participating in the decisions that they are asked to implement (Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J., Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions, 2016).
Some argue that the involvement of the team in the product definition increases the sense of ownership (Smith & Blanck, 2002): Time spent together exclusively for creating a product specification helps to bond the team around this definition of the product. The sense of ownership and deep understanding of product definition issues, which comes with the opportunity to influence the definition, will move the remainder of the project along faster.
Organizations and business scholars have long puzzled over how to incentivize this sense of ownership, which is central to building commitment to action. Stock ownership plans, performance-based pay, and related schemes have all been tried. These have merit, but in the end, monetary rewards matter less to individuals than participating in the decisions that they are asked to implement. Participation engenders a sense of ownership that results in commitment and effectiveness during implementation (Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J., Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions, 2016).
Ownership and Participation
Simply put, a quality decision requires commitment from two Parties: the people who have the power to decide, allocate resources, and support their choices; and those who will lead the implementation. Both parties must have the opportunity to participate in the decision process. When the implementers are included in the decision process, they (Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J., Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions, 2016):
- Suggest new alternatives.
- Provide insights and information from their unique perspectives
- Help gather information. Evaluate feasibility and identity potential execution failures.
- Explore and share their perspectives about the decision’s value drivers, thereby preparing to make value-driven decisions during implementation.
Through their involvement, they also have opportunities to understand (Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J., Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions, 2016):
- What’s at stake and why the decision is important.
- Why the selected alternative was chosen (and perhaps why their preferred alternative was rejected).
- What the decision makers expect in terms of implementation.
- How the decision will create value, and what the key value drivers are.
- What tradeoffs can be made during implementation to preserve value.
This eliminates the mentality that often sets strategists and implementers against each other when they should be working toward the same goal: creating and delivering value for the organization (Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J., Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions, 2016).
Ownership and Trust
When it comes to teams, trust is about vulnerability. Team members who trust one another learn to be comfortable being open — even exposed — to one another around their failures, weaknesses and even fears. Now, if this is beginning to sound like some get-naked, touchy-feely theory, rest assured is not that is nothing of the sort (Lencioni, P. M., The five dysfunctions of a team, 2013).
Vulnerability-based trust is predicated on the simple — and practical — idea that people who aren’t afraid to admit the truth about themselves are not going to engage in the kind of political behavior that wastes everyone’s time and energy, and more importantly, makes accomplishments of results an unlikely scenario (Lencioni, P. M., The five dysfunctions of a team, 2013).
Trust and Boundaries
When considering boundaries of teams and other groups within the organization, it is important to consider “group trust levels”: the amount of trust that can exist within groupings of a certain size. This is no different (but possibly harder) when it comes to remote-first teams, due to the lack of face-to-face contact. With high trust, groups can make decisions quickly and improve flow. However, there are well-recognized limits to trust that seem to relate to basic human evolutionary limits, like brain size (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar has done significant research on the size of social networks: the number of people with whom a person can have meaningful relationships. He found that an individual’s social network size is typically in the order of one hundred to two hundred individuals. Robin Dunbar has also done research into online social networks, and what’s really interesting is the same kind of trust boundaries — the same kind of social groupings — are present. A typical person maintains no more than about 150 meaningful relationships on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter. So even if you have five thousand Facebook friends, you tend to interaction with only about 150 (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
But do these trust boundaries apply in a work context? Early in 2020, some new research by Emily Webber and Robin Dunbar found that these same trust boundaries are present inside organizations in the context of communities of practice (CoP), suggesting that other groups in a work context may also be affected. Specifically, CoP groups exhibited a similar “fractal” structure to that seen in other social contexts (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
The research suggests that professional work-oriented organizations
may be subject to the same kinds of constraint imposed on human social organization by the social brain, meaning that the sizes of CoPs tended to group around the “Dunbar” trust boundaries of 5, 15, 35, 50, 150, 500 people, etc., and — by extension — the social dynamics of different-sized CoPs will also be different (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
Applying the ideas of group trust boundaries to physical space is fairly straight-forward: when a room, floor, building, or location reaches and exceeds a certain trust boundary size, expect trust dynamics to change. Expect “us and them” mentalities to emerge. However, we also need to apply these same principles to online spaces, especially chat tools and online documentation tools like wikis (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
What does this mean in practice? Consider managing online spaces in a similar way: when the size of an online space reaches a trust boundary (such as 50 or 150 people), instead of adding more people to the same online space, create a new space. Each online space grouping should have people with a shared focus on a related flow of change (Skelton, M., & Pais, M., Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working, 2022).
Trust and Psychological Safety
Trust is also a prerequisite for Psychological safety: the belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. That one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes (Edmondson, A. C., The fearless organization, 2018).
Creating psychological safety is not about being nice to each other or reducing performance standards, but rather about creating a culture of openness where teammates can share learning, be direct, take risks, admit they “screwed up,” and are willing to ask for help when they’re in over their head (Mastrogiacomo, S., Osterwalder, A., Smith, A., & Papadakos, T., High-impact tools for teams, 2021).
Trust and Commitment
Commitment is the achievement of clarity and buy-in by a team around a decision, without hidden reservation or hesitation. Even when teams initially disagree about a decision, by engaging in a productive conflict, they can eventually agree to a single course of action, confident that no one on the team is quietly harbouring doubts (Lencioni, P. M., Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team, 2011).
Commitment is tightly coupled with trust, which is much harder to maintain when the team is dispersed. The more barriers the team encounters—distance, organizational boundaries, cultural and political differences, and language barriers—the more difficult it is to build and maintain trust. When members feel appreciated and supported, they will speak up during meetings, share ideas, and discuss issues freely and in a collaborative manner. Without this trust and respect, meetings are not as effective, innovation suffers, and discussion can bog down in meaningless details (Smith & Blanck, 2002).
I found important that designers understand the co-relation of communication and relationships, and the importance building trust.
A good way to start is to understand and identify Cultural, Social, Political, and Technical issues of working with teams and stakeholders, master collaboration, and have a good grasp of what it takes to become a Trusted Advisor.
These will speak more for you than the words that come out of your mouth in a meeting. I couldn’t agree more with Greever (2020) when he says that it’s ironic that Uxers are so good at putting the user first, at garnering empathy for and attempting to see the interface from the perspective of the user. Yet, we often fail to do the same thing for the people who hold the key to our success.
That involves a few key soft skills, particularly influencing without authority.
Be relational, not positional: barking order is positional, It assumes that your employees will rush to obey simply because you’re in charge. But remember, leadership is influence. Be tuned into their culture, background, education, etc. Then adapt your communication to them personally (“The Law of Influence” in The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You, Maxwell, J.C., 2007).
If building trust is important, then how does one becomes a trusted advisor?
Trust must be earned and deserved. You must do something to give the other people the evidence on which they can base their decision on whether to trust you. You must be willing to give in order to get.
There are two important things about building trust. First, it has to do with keeping one’s self interest in check, and, second trust can be won or lost very rapidly (Maister, D. H., Galford, R., & Green, C, 2021).
Social, Action and Situation Awareness
Social awareness (who is around?) is about how well the team and individual team members understand the social context of work, not on the on going activities and artefacts of a joint cooperative effort (Schmidt, 2002). In terms of cooperation, detecting others’ presence and availability can engender informal communication, which usually comes handy for design coordination.
When the level of social awareness of the team is low, it creates problems. Usually the biggest barrier is the difficulty to establish contact. Firstly, ‘knowing who to contact about what’ may be problematic, in particular, in multi-site design: people do not know each other personally and cannot identify easily who is the person who has the relevant information or is the expert (Détienne, 2006).
Action awareness (what is happening?) refers to the choreography of artefacts, tasks and collaborators contributions: timing, type or frequency of collaborators’ interaction with a shared resource; location and focus of collaborators’ current activity. It is oriented towards product dependency rather than process dependency (Détienne, 2006).
Situation awareness (how are things going?) is awareness of other people’s plans and understandings: shared plans; assignments or modifications of project roles; tasks dependencies based on roles, timing, resources, status of design project progress. It is oriented toward process dependency.
When you’re out of the office, you’re free to structure your time to suit your own particular habits and needs. But the routines, the etiquette, and the that work for you also need to work for your colleagues. Here are some questions to spark a discussion with your colleagues about how you’ll work together. Asking close collaborators these questions (and supplying your answers for others) will help you avoid confusion (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- How many hours each day or week will you work when you’re not in the office? What times of the day are you expected to be available?
- If you’re in different time zones, how will you schedule meeting to accommodate one another?
- Will you have visibility into each other’s schedule (perhaps through an e-mail client such as Outlook) or create a shared team schedule (such as Google Calendar)?
- Do you have authority to assign work to colleagues and vice versa?
- What responsibility do you have to accept a coworker’s request for help? What freedom do you have to politely refuse?
Strategic Collaboration and the “Process” Lens
In my experience, the biggest disconnect between the work designers need to do and the mindset of every other team member in a team is usually about how quickly we tend — when not facilitated — to jump to solutions instead of contemplate and explore the problem space a little longer.
I’m of the opinion that designers — instead of complaining that everyone else is jumping too quickly into solutions — should facilitate the discussions and help others raise the awareness around the creative and problem solving process.
From that perspective, I find it incredibly important that designers need to ask good questions that foster divergent thinking, explore multiple solutions, and — probably the most critical — help teams converge and align on the direction they should go (Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J., “What is a Game?” in Gamestorming, 2010).
Knowing when team should be diverging, when they should be exploring, and when they should closing will help ensure they get the best out of their collective brainstorming and multiple perspectives’ power and keep the team engaged.
Remember when I mentioned the distinction between Collaborative versus Distributed design earlier? You may realize or not, but in global or remote teams some activities are (or should be) inherently collaborative — like strategy and vision–, while others — like execution — could benefit from a distributed approach.
Creating Shared Understanding
In my practice, I’ve found that — more often than not — is not for the lack of ideas that teams cannot innovate, but because of all the friction or drag created by not having a shared vision and understanding of what the problems they are trying to solve.
Just to make sure I’m not misunderstood: it doesn’t matter at that point if the team lacks a vision or the vision is just poorly communicated, the result is the same: team will lack engagement and slowly drift apart.
Shared Understanding (“Cognitive synchronization”) enables partners collaborating in a distributed design environment to reach two objectives (Falzon, Montmollin, & Béguin, 1996):
- Assure that they each have a knowledge of the facts relating to the state of the situation – problem data, state of the solutions, accepted hypothesis, etc, and
- Assure that they share a common knowledge regarding the domain – technical rules, objects in the domain and their features, resolution procedures, etc.
Teams that attain a shared understanding are far more likely to get a great design than those teams who fail to develop a common perception of the project’s goals and outcome (Jared Spool, “Attaining a Collaborative Shared Understanding” in Govella, A., Collaborative Product Design, 2019).
It’s very easy to verify if the team lacks understanding around the problem the team is trying to solve. Just ask some fundamental questions in your next meeting, like “what is the problem we are trying to solve”? “And for whom”?”
If you get different answers from key stakeholders, it is probably a good indication that you should jump in and help facilitate the discussion that will help the team to align.
Changing the behaviour to a “we think together” model is the central activity of collaboration. Because thinking together closes a gap; people can now act without checking back in because there were there when the decision was made. They’ve already had the debates about all the trade-offs that actually make something work. This may appear a case of “when all was said and done, a lot more was said than done.” However, time needs to be spent in the messy and time-consuming front loaded process of thinking through possibilities in order to inform the decisions that needs to be made (Van Der Meulen, M., Counterintuitivity: Making Meaningful Innovation, 2019)
Sharing early and often helps create shared understanding (learn more about sharing early in Communication of Data, Knowledge, Information) by triggering the conversations that help you find out what others think, while doing three things (LeMay, M., Agile for Everybody, 2018):
- Turning assumptions into knowledge
- Testing ideas and hypotheses to see if they show promise with those they are meant to help
- Opening up our thinking to find blind spots and mistakes.
Developing Shared Memories and Meaning
Developing shared meaning requires achieving a mutually accepted and understood lexicology, schema or language in which to communicate, despite differences in backgrounds (education, training, experience, fields, etc.) of the team members (Lang, Dickinson, & Buchal, 2002).
Many people — perhaps especially Americans — underestimate how differently people do things in other countries. Examples and insights for avoiding this can be found in The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business, a 2014 bestseller by INSEAD professor Erin Meyer.
Meyer claims you can improve relationships by considering where you and international partners fall on each of these scales (Meyer, E., The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business, 2014):
- Communicating: explicit vs. implicit
- Evaluating: direct negative feedback vs. indirect negative feedback
- Persuading: deductive vs. inductive
- Leading: egalitarian vs. hierarchical
- Deciding: consensual vs. top down
- Trusting: task vs. relationship
- Disagreeing: confrontational vs. avoid confrontation
- Scheduling: structured vs. flexible
Strategic collaboration at its core is about including diverse perspectives and people. Being inclusive makes team stronger; you have more to draw on and get more people invested in the success of the effort. But groups often need help bringing their differences productively. You can help teams be open with each other and develop shared norms to govern behaviours by being aware of collaboration dynamics (Anderson, G., Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive, 2019):
- Being inclusive of many different kinds of people, skills sets, and perspectives is a core part of collaboration that helps mitigate risks, engage the team, and find blind spots before they become a problem.
- Inclusivity can challenge the status quo of how people interact and may being about interpersonal conflicts that are destructive to the team.
- Working in different cultures that aren’t naturally conducive to collaboration is challenging, but don’t get caught up in making changing the culture your mission. Instead, focus on practical, tactical changes that create a local space for team to be productive and deliver results. Culture Change will happen as a by-product of good results over time.
If you’re working with people in different countries or culture, you can close the gap in several ways (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- Ask them how they prefer to communicate: You’d do this with any colleague, but put extra thought into it when you and your coworkers aren’t fluent in the same languages. Are they comfortable with written or oral communications?
- Build on common ground: However different your and your colleague’s past experiences, you do share something in common right now: this work. Are you both sticklers about punctuality? Do you geek out about the same things? Are both of you having trouble getting a certain tool to function properly?
- Do your own research. If you’re working with more than one person who live in a different country of if you will be collaborating with someone for a long time, read up about the area. Learn about their cultures and traditions. Occasionally check in with the main source of news for that area. Express your interest in learning more, and ask your colleagues directly for their recommendations.
As we build a shared understanding of what word and phrases mean among a group, we instinctively being to use them over other words that might mean the same things. By avoiding words that aren’t as easily recognised by the others in the gorup, we streamline and improve the quality of our conversations (Connor, A., & Irizarry, A., Discussing Design, 2015).
In distributed or remote strategic collaboration, most of the shared memories are created during meetings. So, we must design meetings that optimise for memory by understanding how our brains work and optimising to make sure our stakeholders remember what we discussed. Here are fa few simple concepts we can keep in mind (Greever, T., Articulating Design Decisions, 2020):
- Primacy and Recency. People are more likely to remember the first and the last things we say. They drop off completely somewhere in the middle. We can use this to our advantage by breaking up our content into meaningful (smaller) chunks and creating distinct transitions between each part.
- Repetition. People are more likely to remember something that’s been repeated. This universal understanding in marketing and advertising is useful for our stakeholders conversation too. What’s is the most important things you want them to remember? The goal or problem we are trying to solve and the decision we made. So plane to repeat these (verbally or visually on a slide) at least three times throughout the conversation.
- Surprise. People are also more likely to remember something they weren’t expecting. If you can find a way to insert something into your discussion that’s not commonly part of your meeting, they will remember. This can be difficult to do in a business setting g where things are expected to be business-y, but a touch of levity, comic relief, or unexpected surprise can be effective. This simple technique is a well-time joked that breaks a stagnant conversation. Remember the point isn’t just surprise them for the sake of surprise: it’s to help them remember an important bit of content. The challenge with using the element of surprise is that you don’t want it to be a distraction. Find the right balance of keeping people engaged with your content without causing unnecessary distraction that derail the meeting.
Planning of activities, tasks and methodologies
One misconception about collaboration is that it’s a freewheeling effort where teams are encouraged to work free from rules and processes that might constrain them. It’s tempting, especially when te problem has a number of unknowns — to get the group together and dive in, because it’s true that we want individuals freed to participate. But the effort? That takes planning (Anderson, G., Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive, 2019).
The larger the team gets, the more complex the planning becomes, especially when it comes to managing task interdependencies. There are many workflow or project management tools invented in order to guide and monitor progress through a task: task goals, task decomposition into subtasks, dependencies among tasks and subtasks, actors roles and assigned responsibilities, tasks and subtask completion status. These tools are aimed to support coordination. They have – at least – two kinds of limit for design task (Détienne, 2006):
- Design work is a tightly coupled work with high and complex dependencies between tasks. Modelling these dependencies in a workflow system is not easy (and sometimes, even not possible).
- Design work involves opportunistic planning and re-planning (Hayes-Roth and Hayes-Roth, 1979): opportunistic planning leads to creation and modification of goals and subgoals. This evolution is not taken into account in workflow systems, in which the task planning is based on the prescribed process model rather than on the effective activity.
Negotiation and Conflict Handling
In a collaborative environment, Design is a process of negotiating among disciplines. Solutions are not only based on purely technical problem solving criteria. They also result from compromises between designers: solutions are negotiated (Bucciarelli, 1988). Therefore, it is important to establish common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design (Détienne, 2006).
Given the collaboration required to generate shared understanding, conflicts can emerge from disagreements between designers and other stakeholders about proposed designs. Hence, a critical element of collaborative design is to manage the detected conflicts and particularly the impacts once they are resolved (Ouertani, 2008).
When I talk about conflict on a team, I’m talking about productive, ideological conflict: passionate, unfiltered debate around issues of importance to the team. Any team that wants to maximise its effectiveness needs to learn to do this, and doing so can only happen if vulnerability-based trust exists (Lencioni, P. M., The five dysfunctions of a team, 2013)
Conflict is natural to organizations and can never be completely eliminated. If not managed properly, conflict can be dysfunctional and lead to undesirable consequences, such as hostility, lack of cooperation, and even violence. When managed effectively, conflict can stimulate creativity, innovation, and change (Baron, E., The Book of Management: the ten essential skills for achieving high performance, 2010).
While conflict is natural, we need to step up to the plate with a non-judgemental attitude towards our team, always expecting the best and –– in a counter intuitive way –– not anticipate conflicts.
This is not to say that some teams that lack trust don’t argue. It’s just that their arguments are often destructive because they are laced with politics, pride, and competition, rather than humble pursuit of truth. When people who don’t trust one another engage in passionate debate, they are trying to win the argument. They aren’t usually listening to the other person’s ideas and then reconsidering their point of view; they are figuring out how to manipulate the conversation to get what they want. Or worse yet, they are not even arguing with the other person face-to-face, but venting about them in the hallways after the meeting is over (Lencioni, P. M., Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team, 2011).
I’ve noticed in my own experience — but also observing how junior designers conduct themselves — is that we usually tend to bargain over positions (e.g.: “from a user experience perspective, this works best because….”), thinking that if we bring enough knowledge to the table or make strong enough arguments, designers would convince the team about the way to move forward. This idea of “Bargaining over positions” (through persuasion) comes with shortcomings that we are – more often than not – not even aware of since most of us were not trained with the emotional intelligence it takes to deal with conflict in a healthy way.
Meyer again brings clarity also on way persuading might prove to be difficult in trans-cultural teams (Meyer, E., “Why versus How: The Art of Persuasion in a Multicultural World” in The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business, 2014):
- some cultures tend to be Concept-first: individuals have been trained to first develop the theory or complex concept before presenting a fact, statement or opinion)
- while others tend to be Application-first: individuals are trained to begin with a fact, statement, or opinion and later add concept to back up or explain the conclusion as necessary.
From that perspective, another challenge that arises while negotiating comes from the fact that the way most negotiation strategies fail because they start arguing over positions (Fisher, R., & Ury, W., Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in, 2012):
- Arguing over positions produces unwise outcomes: we tend to lock ourselves in those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attacks, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince “the other side” of the impossibility of changing your position, the more difficult it becomes to do so.
- Arguing over positions endangers an ongoing relationship: positional bargaining becomes a contest of will. Each side tries through sheer willpower to force the other to change its position. Anger and resentment often results as one side sees itself bending to the rigid will of the other while its own legitimate concerns go undressed. Positional bargaining thus strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties.
- Where there are many parties, positional bargaining is even worse: although it is convenient to discuss in terms of two persons, you and the “other side”, in fact, almost every negotiation involves more than two persons. The more people involved in the negotiation, the more serious the drawbacks of positional bargaining.
- Being nice is no answer: many people recognise the high costs of hard positional bargaining, particularly on the parties and their relationship. They hope to avoid them by following a more gentle style of negotiation. Instead of seeing the other side as adversaries, they prefer to see them as friends. Rather than emphasising a goal of victory, they emphasise the necessity of reaching agreement. In a soft negotiating game the standard move are to make offers and concessions, to trust the other side, to be friendly, and to yield as necessary to avoid confrontation. Pursuing a soft and friendly form of positional bargaining makes you vulnerable to someone who plays a hard game.
One approach to get more constructive conflict handling is to change the game from arguing over positions to negotiating on merits (Fisher, R., & Ury, W., Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in, 2012):
- Principled: participants are problem-solvers whose goal is a wise outcomes reached efficiently and amicable.
- Separate the people from the problem: be soft on the people, hard on the problem; proceed independent of trust
- Focus on interests, not positions: explore interests, avoid having a bottom line.
- Invent options for mutual gain: generate alternatives to choose from; decide later.
- Insist on using objective criteria: try to reach a result based on stands independent of will; reason and be open to reason; yield to principle, not pressure.
As negotiators, different people will have different interests and styles of communication. Different things may be persuasive to them, and they may have different ways of making decisions. How should we accommodate such similarities and differences in negotiating with different people? Here are some suggested guidelines (Fisher, R., & Ury, W., Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in, 2012):
- Get in step. In any negotiation it is highly desirable to be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns, norms of behavior, and mood of those with whom you are dealing. Adapt your behavior accordingly. If you are negotiating with someone, it is that person whom you are trying to affect. The more successfully you can get in step with that person’s way of thinking, the more likely you are to be able to work out an agreement.
- Adapt this general advice to the specific situation. These guidelines offer general advice. It will not apply in the same way in every circumstance with every person. But the basic propositions are generally applicable. Absent a compelling reason to do otherwise, we advise crafting your specific approach to every negotiation around them. The best way to implement these general principles will depend on the specific context. Consider where you are, with whom you are dealing, customs of the industry, past experience with this negotiator, and so on, in crafting an approach to fit the situation.
- Pay attention to differences of belief and custom, but avoid stereotyping individuals. Different groups and places have different customs and beliefs. Know and respect them, but beware of making assumptions about individuals. The attitudes, interests, and other characteristics of an individual are often quite different from those of a group to which they may belong. Making assumptions about someone based on their group characteristics is insulting, as well as factually risky. It denies that person his or her individuality. We do not assume that our beliefs and habits are dictated by the groups in which we happen to fit; to imply as much of others is demeaning. Each of us is affected by myriad aspects of our environment and upbringing, our culture and group identity, but in no individually predictable way.
- Question your assumptions; listen actively. Whatever assumption you make about others -whether you assume they are just like you or totally different – question it. Be open to learning that they are quite unlike what you expected. The wide variations among cultures provide clues as to the kind of differences for which you should be looking, but remember that all of us have special interests and qualities that do not fit any standard mold.
Moving away from bargaining positions to negotiate on merits is pretty much aligned with two important skills that designers must master:
- Create Great Choices: the effectiveness of the team in making good decision depends on their ability of generating alternatives.
- Facilitate Critique: when well done, critique focuses on analysing design choices against a product’s objective.
Without multiple solutions to any question, the process is highly vulnerable. Without the ability to see all the work at once, spread out, relationships will be missed, and the conversation and subsequent designs will suffer. (Buxton, B., Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design, 2007).
“…the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models, and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superior to each.”“Integrative thinking” in The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking, Martin, R. L. (2009)
- Articulate the models. Understand the problem and opposing models — even, or perhaps especially, those that make us deeply uncomfortable — more deeply.
- Examine the models. Define the points of tension, assumptions, and cause-and-effect forces, with the aim of getting to an articulation of the core value that each model provides. The intention is not to help you choose between these opposing models, but to help you use the opposing models to create a great new, choice.
- Explore new possibilities. Play with the pathways to integration. Go back to the problem you have been working on. Take a step back and ask, how might I break my initial problem apart, along a meaningful dividing line, so that I could apply one of my models to one part of the problem, and the other model to the other part of the problem? What might a new answer look like in these conditions?
- Assess the prototype: Concretely define each possibility, more comprehensively articulating how might it work. Understand the logic of the possibilities, asking under what conditions each possibility would be a winning integrative solution. Design and conduct test for each possibility, generating needed data over time.
Facilitating critiques becomes extremely important to get teams to converge from the alternatives generated during ideas. Critique – when well done – focuses on analysing design choices against a product’s objective. It also provides teams with additional benefits, acting as a mechanism for building shared vocabulary, finding relevant consensus, and driving effective iteration. The structure of a good critique looks like this (Connor, A., & Irizarry, A., Discussing Design, 2015):
- It identifies a specific aspect of the idea or a decision in the design being analyzed.
- It relates that aspect or decision to an objective or best practice.
- It describes how and why the aspect or decision works to support or not support the objective or best practice.
Strategic Collaboration and the “Artifacts” Lens
The main difficulty associated with a collaborative design process is to understand the product data exchanged during the design. Efficient and effective coordination of design activities relies on a thorough understanding of the dependencies between share product specifications throughout the entire development cycle (Ouertania & Gzarab, 2008). The capture and expression of this knowledge is vital if teams are to be able to use both existing knowledge and generate new knowledge for future activities.
Communication of Data, Knowledge, Information
Successful collaborative product design depends on the ability to effectively manage and share knowledge and experience throughout the entire development process. Challenges in this area include knowledge discovery, support for natural language processing and information retrieval, the capturing of design intent in multimedia formats, dynamic knowledge management, self-learning, reasoning and knowledge reuse (Shen, Hao, & Li, 2008).
Typical communication problems in strategic collaboration usually are (Chiu, 2002):
- The media problem: design information needs to be conveyed, and the communication problem is related to how to transmit communication message and symbols precisely.
- The semantic problem: the purpose of communication is the accurate conveying of information. The problem is how to let the message and its symbols carry their original meaning without interference from noise.
- The performance problem: the problem is related to how to effectively receive meaning in messages and influence behavior as the sender wished.
- The organizational problem: to reach the right persons for sharing expertise or ideas, design information has to pass throughout the hierarchy of an organization. The complexity of transmission is related to the scale of distribution.
Sharing work early and often is critical for team to succeed. Because organizations typically share finished work for a final approval, versus seeking input to refine work in progress, solutions can become inflexible (Anderson, G., Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive, 2019)
Sharing work in progress also helps organisations continually refine and communicate their understanding of the problem(s) to be solved. Sharing early and often means being curious to hear what others think about ideas before they are fully fleshed out. Sharing also helps keep a large group more engaged in the problems and solutions at play (Anderson, G., Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive, 2019).
Design History, Intent and Rationale
Although design in any domain is a very complex activity, the end-result of a design process is merely a product description either captured in the form of drawings/description or in a digital system. The decisions made in the design process and the rationale behind the design of the component(s) that comprise the system are not recorded as output of the design process. Even where the history of the design process has been recorded, the history captures the sequence of actions taken by the designer, not the “design intent” for that action (Sim, S. K., Duffy, A. H. B., 1994):
- The design intent of the object or component or system remains known only to the designer and becomes hidden to others who may wish to use the design information.
- Capturing design intent explicitly in any design support system is important because a misunderstanding of the designer’s intent may have dire consequences. Capturing design intent in digital systems is usually not built-in and requires knowledge management strategies, policies and tools.
The benefit of explicitly stating the design intent is that it helps both the designer and the users of that design information to understand the expected behaviour or effect of the design solution and act sensibly when using that information. The rationale for design intent is accomplished by (Klein, M., 1992):
- Keeping track of the relationships and differences between the options explored.
- Ensuring that all relevant issues and requirements have been addressed.
- Detecting flaws in one’s reasoning.
- Tracking the consequences of changes in requirements and design decisions.
The value of the capture and representation of design intent, design rationale and design history pays off for:
- capturing of design expertise as a corporate asset
- reusing of design expertise to accelerate future designs, an
- facilitating backtracking during complex and ill-defined and ill-structured design problems
Synchronous versus Asynchronous
Human beings social beings. We are wired to connect with other people and feel alive and well (Lieberman, M. D., Social: Why our brains are wired to connect, 2013). Without connection, our very existing is in danger and crisis. In the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, we found ourselves in the mines of such a crisis across all walks of life. Social distancing made “social” feel distant. In theory, we had a set of miracle technologies that could helps us stay connected (Ozenc, K., & Fajardo, G., Rituals for virtual meetings, 2021).
I remember when I first moved to China in 2005, I had to buy Prepaid Phone Cards to make phone calls to my parents and loved ones back in Brazil: those were expensive, so I could only call family once a week (sometimes a month). Around that time, Skype was becoming popular. At some point, I did the math and figured out that it was cheaper to buy my parents / in-laws a computer and teach them how to use Skype than it was to spend money on phone calls.
Fast forward a decade and now people can videoconference from their mobile phone on the go! My kids can talk to their grandparents at anytime — or almost, since they had to learn the concept of timezone difference. My kids are even learning to send message to their colleagues in other countries (we’re an international family!) and wait to get the reply the next day: my kids learned early on to understand the difference between synchronous and asynchronous.
The different types of interaction can be considered in a space/time matrix, which is based on two principle dimensions of collaborative systems: the location of the users and the time of the collaboration involved (Saad & Maher, 1996).
|Same Time (Synchronous)||Different Time (Asynchronous)|
|Same Place (co-located)||Face-to-face Interactions (meeting rooms, design studios, shared table, workshop room)||Continuous Task (team rooms, large public display, shift work, project management)|
|Different Place (remote)||Remote Interactions (video-conferencing, instant messaging, virtual whiteboards, shared screens, virtual worlds)||Communication + Coordination (email, discussion lists, blogs, asynchronous conferencing, group calendars, workflow, file sharing, versioning control, wiki, etc)|
When you think about it, it’s kind of crazy that technology such as video conferencing — or the internet itself — could be so widely available. But in reality, it was frustrating for many people. Why? Because people largely tried to recreate what did they in-person in their virtual meetings, since that’s the only experience that was familiar to them. Many people approached virtual meetings with a deficit mindset where “it’s never as good as in-person,” and they ended up with sad, second-rate copies of in-person experience (Ozenc, K., & Fajardo, G., Rituals for virtual meetings, 2021).
When it comes to Synchronous or Asynchronous communication, how can you can strategic collaboration as effective and efficient as possible? To decide which mode to use, ask yourself two questions (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- What do you want the recipient to do after you convey your message? If you thinking they will have a lot of question or will need to craft a detailed replay, then phone or video is best.
- If you need a quick answer, try email, text, or another Instant Message service.
Strategic collaboration through asynchronous or synchronous design meeting is not only seeking a place for exchanging and sharing information, ideas, concerns of individuals, but also functions as a place for understanding the context and situation of a project, exploring and developing design concepts and ideas, and reaching a consensus of a team (Yamaguchi & Toizumi, 2000).
These tips for communicating with colleagues in different places (If you’re part of a team, ideally your team leader will coordinate a conversation around how you will use the tools that you’ve identified. If you’re working in a looser arrangement, it probably doesn’t make sense to work out detailed rules, but you can still take the lead to clarify a few key items (Harvard Business Review, Virtual Collaboration, 2016):
- Get some real-time face time, even with colleagues in different time zones. Done’t let the logistics put off: if you can’t find a mutually convenient hour, be the one to compromise.
- Find a shared widow of time in your working days, and make sure you’re regularly available during that period.
- If you don’t have any available hours in common, talk explicitly about how you’ll manage trading any necessary information to keep things moving. What do each of you need from the other to get your work done?
Some conflict arises when people try to do too much all together. Keep an eye on people’s energy level, be aware of those who may do better work on their own, and then come back to share and critique. Make time and space for people to be away from one another and keep their discussion focused on the content of work and decisions (Anderson, G., Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive, 2019).
When considering Synchronous versus Asynchronous collaboration, one aspect that most people take for granted is that — intentionally or unintentionally — consider collaboration as a series of one-way unnecessary interactions.
What can be done? We’ve found it’s possible to quickly improve collaborative interactions by categorizing them by type and making a few shifts accordingly. De Smet et al. observed three broad categories of collaborative interactions (If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?, 2022):
- Decision making, including complex or uncertain decisions (for example, investment decisions) and cross-cutting routine decisions (such as quarterly business reviews)
- Creative solutions and coordination, including innovation sessions (for example, developing new products) and routine working sessions (such as daily check-ins)
- Information sharing, including one-way communication (video, for instance) and two-way communication (such as town halls with Q&As)
With these broad categories of collaboration in mind, De Smet et al. suggest different formats for different types of collaboration: face-to-face, virtual (synchronous), other mechanisms (asynchronous).
Finally, no meeting could be considered well scoped without considering who should participate, as there are real financial and transaction costs to meeting participation. Leaders should treat time spent in meetings as seriously as companies treat financial capital (De Smet, A., Hewes, C., Luo, M., Maxwell, J. R., & Simon, P., If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?, 2022)
We encourage you to excuse yourself from meetings if you don’t have a role in influencing the outcome and to instead get a quick update over email. If you are not essential, the meeting will still be successful (possibly more so!) without your presence. Try it and see what happens (De Smet, A., Hewes, C., Luo, M., Maxwell, J. R., & Simon, P., If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done, 2022).
Facilitating Decision Making
I’ve met with many designers that that feel frustrated that the vision they try to convey doesn’t get through the team. I even heard things like “if people would [ INSERT THE NAME OF AN ARTIFACT HERE ]… be it specifications, prototypes, concepts, etc.
Here is something important to bear in mind: artifacts don’t influence people; people influence people! From that perpective, designers might be putting too much faith on the documents they produce. Don’t get me wrong: knowledge management is something important for the long-term success of the team, but when it comes to influencing, designers need to skill up!
As I mentioned in the first post of this series, we need a different kind of senior designer. We need designers working on user experience teams must first advance from a tactical designer to a strategic designer. They can not only move pixels, but translate design insights in a currency that business stakeholders can understand. After that, he or she can get teams to paddle in the same direction.
That said, you’ve probably have experienced problems working with teams, such as:
- drifting focus
- misunderstood communications
- uneven participation
- struggles for power and control
- difficulties reaching consensus
- frustrations with obtaining commitment to follow up action.
This is not by ill-intent: Patrick Lencioni posits that making a team high performing – i.e. high-functioning, collaborative, cohesive, aspiring, engaging – requires self-discipline, courage and stamina (Lencioni, P. M., Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team, 2011).
It’s been my experience that — left to chance — it’s only natural that teams will stray from vision and goals. Helping teams paddle in the same direction requires not only good vision and goals, but also leadership, and intentional facilitation.
I’ll argue for the Need of Facilitation in the sense that — if designers want to influence the decisions that shape strategy — they must step up to the plate and become skilled facilitators that respond, prod, encourage, guide, coach and teach as they guide individuals and groups to make decisions that are critical in the business world though effective processes.
That said, my opinion is that facilitation here does not only means “facilitate workshops”, but facilitate the decisions regardless of what kinds of activities are required.
I’m of the opinion that designers — instead of complaining that everyone else “doesn’t get it” — should facilitate the discussions and help others raise the awareness around the creative and problem solving process.
Facilitating remote meetings can be challenging. Facilitation is built on the trust of the room, and much of that trust is earned via nonverbal communication. Matching tone-of-voice, volume, vocabulary, and body positioning contribute to trust in the facilitator. In a remote meeting, you’re left with only voice, and if technology is willing, a two-dimensional video. When facilitating a remote conversation, it can help to establish more ground rules regarding how to speak. For example, you might have people announce their names before they speak in the beginning of a call, until or unless everyone can tell each person apart by some other means (Hoffman, K. M., Meeting Design: For Managers, Makers, and Everyone, 2018).
One of the main things that physical and virtual meetings should have in common is a really clear purpose as to why people are attending. Everyone who’s in the meeting needs to know why they’re there and what role they will play (Andersen, H. H., Nelson, I., & Ronex, K., Virtual Facilitation: Create More Engagement and Impact, 2020).
One way to make our meetings easier for stakeholders is to set the context at the beginning. That is, to start the meeting with a reminder of the goal for this project or design, where we are in our process, and the kinds of feedback they can expect to provide. Here are a few tips to quickly bring them to speed (Greever, T., Articulating Design Decisions, 2020):
- State the goal. The first thing you should remind them about is your previously agreed-upon goal for this project or design. This should ideally be an improved business metric or the outcome we expect, but it might also be framed as the feature or output of your work. It be be your your answer to the questions, what problem does it solve? Whatever the goal is, state that clearly up front before you jump into your designs.
- Summarise the last meeting. Briefly remind them of the discussion you had last time or the decision you made together. This can be a short sentence or several items, depending on the project. Either way, you want to quickly refresh their memory of your last conversation.
- Show a timeline. Create a visual that will help them understand where you are in the process of your design. Typically, you can express this as a horizontal line where the left side is the starting points (research, low-fidelity mockups, etc), and the right side is the finished design (high fidelity, ready to ship, etc). Highlight where you are on this spectrum and the level of fidelity of design they can expect to see.
- Specify the feedback you need. Also, tell them the kinds of feedback that are helpful at this stage in the project and what feedback is not needed yet. Helping them understand what feedback is most valuable will help you guide the conversation in a productive way.
- State the goal, again. It’s important that we are always on the same page about the problem we trying to solve. Conversations get derailed when people fail to remember the goal or the goal has changed without us realising it. Repeating it will reinforce this and help everyone remember what we’re here to accomplish
When you’re in the design and planning of your virtual meeting, you will look at the purpose, the participants, the platform, process and partners. In that sense, the structure around designing your meeting is the same whether you’re planning a face-to-face or virtual meeting. We simply need to tweak them to make them work on a virtual platform (Andersen, H. H., Nelson, I., & Ronex, K., Virtual Facilitation: Create More Engagement and Impact, 2020).
Here are some tips for effective remote meetings (Greever, T., Articulating Design Decisions, 2020):
- Tell everyone to turn on their camera. Even if there are few people together in a conference room, each of those people should use their own laptops and cameras so that everyone participating remotely can see everyone else. People feel left out when someone is off-camera.
- Share your screen and your video. You want everyone to see both your face as well as the content you’re representing.
- Find good background. Ideally, sit somewhere with a simple wall behind you and light shining on your face. Virtual backgrounds can be helpful, but are just as often a distraction.
- Be an expert in muting. You mic should only be on if you’re talking. Learn the keyboard shortcut for muting your mic and use it.
- Think about your facial expressions. Smile and nod just as you would if you were in-person. It can be discouraging to see someone wince in the middle of a meeting, even if they’re wicking at something else in the middle of a meeting. Related, use the webcam attached to the screen you’re using (or position your webcam pointing at your face) so that it appears you’re looking at the people in the meeting. It’s off-putting when people use multiple displays and seem to be looking at the side.
- Turn-off notifications. There are too many distractions, chat messages, and temptations to check your likes on social media. Shut it all down and focus on the people in your meeting.
- Mitigate technology risk. Call in using a phone for audio in addition to your computer audio. If the internet goes down, you’ll still have audio. Preferably, upgrade your router to prioritise bandwidth going your office so that your kids video streaming habits don’t disrupt your meetings.
Abele, J. (2011). Bringing minds together. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 86–93, 164.
Andersen, H. H., Nelson, I., & Ronex, K. (2020). Virtual Facilitation: Create More Engagement and Impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, G. (2019). Mastering Collaboration: Make Working Together Less Painful and More Productive. O’Reilly UK Ltd.
Baron, E. (2010). The Book of Management: the ten essential skills for achieving high performance. London, UK: Dorling Kindersley.
Benson, B. (2019), Why Are We Yelling?: The Art of Productive Disagreement. Portfolio; Illustrated Edition (19 Nov. 2019).
Bernstein, E., Shore, J., & Lazer, D. (2018). How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(35). https://www.pnas.org/content/115/35/8734.
Bucciarelli, L. (1988). Engineering design process. In F. Dubinskas, Making Time: Ethnographies of High-Technology Organizations (pp. 92–122). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Chen, Y.-J., Chen, Y.-M., & Chu, H.-C. (2008). Enabling collaborative product design through distributed engineering knowledge management. Computers in Industry , 59, 395-409
Chiu, M., (2002), “An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration”, Design Studies, Volume 23, Issue 2, March 2002, Pages 187-210
Connor, A., & Irizarry, A. (2015). Discussing Design (1st ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
De Smet, A., Hewes, C., Luo, M., Maxwell, J. R., & Simon, P. (2022, January 10). If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done? Mckinsey.Com; McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/if-were-all-so-busy-why-isnt-anything-getting-done
Détienne, F. (2006). Collaborative design: Managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interacting with Computers (18), 1–20
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Nashville, TN: John Wiley & Sons.
Falzon, P., Montmollin, F. D.-d., & Béguin, P. (1996). Collective design processes. Proceedings of COOP’96,. Juan-les-Pins, France: Second International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2012). Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). London, England: Random House Business Books.
Gothelf, J., & Seiden, J. (2013). Lean UX: Applying lean principles to improve user experience. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media
Govella, A. (2019). Collaborative Product Design: Help any team build a better experience. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Greever, T. (2020). Articulating Design Decisions (2nd Edition). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2015). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Harvard Business Review. (2016). Virtual Collaboration (HBR 20-Minute Manager Series). Harvard Business Review Press.
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3 (4), 275–310. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0304_1
Hoffman, K. M. (2018). Meeting Design: For Managers, Makers, and Everyone. Two Waves Books.
Ivanov, A. (2015). The Team Canvas. Retrieved December 23, 2021, from Theteamcanvas.com website: http://theteamcanvas.com/
Johnson, H., & Carruthers, L. (2006). Supporting creative and reflective processes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (64), 998–1030.
Justice, T., & Jamieson, D. (2012). The Facilitator’s Fieldbook (3rd ed.). Amacom.
Kaley, A. (2022, June 5). Setting UX roles and responsibilities in product development: The RACI template. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from Nielsen Norman Group website: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-roles-responsibilities/
Kleber, S. (2021). Designing the Future of Work at Google. Keynote Presentation, UX STRAT Europe 2021 Conference, Amsterdam, Netherland, September 2021, https://uxstrat.com/europe/program
Klein, M., DRCS (1992), An Integrated System for Capture of Designs and Their Rationale. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Design (AID’92). 393-412, J.S. Gero, Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992
Lang, S. Y., Dickinson, J., & Buchal, R. O. (2002). Cognitive factors in distributed design. Computers in Industry (48), 89-98
LeMay, M. (2018). Agile for Everybody: Creating fast, flexible, and customer-first organizations. O’Reilly Media.
Lencioni, P. M. (2013). The five dysfunctions of a team, enhanced edition: A leadership fable. London, England: Jossey-Bass.
Lencioni, P. M. (2011). Overcoming the five dysfunctions of a team: A field guide for leaders, managers, and facilitators (J. Leffert, Trans.). Recorded Books.
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Oxford University Press.
Lu, S.-Y., Cai, J., Burkett, W., & Udwadia, F. (2000). A Methodology for Collaborative Design Process and Conflict Analysis. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology , 49 (1), 69-73
Mastrogiacomo, S., Osterwalder, A., Smith, A., & Papadakos, T. (2021). High-impact tools for teams: 5 Tools to align team members, build trust, and get results fast. Nashville, TN: John Wiley & Sons.
Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Medeiros, I., (2014). Working in Global Teams. Keynote presentation, Interaction South America, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Nov 2014, http://isa.ixda.org/2014/
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Neilson, G., Martin, K., Powers, E., (2008), “The Secrets to Successful Strategy Execution”, in Harvard business review 86(6):60-70, 138 · June 2008
Ouertani, M. (2008). Supporting conflict management in collaborative design: An approach to assess engineering change impacts. Computers in Industry (59), 882–893.
Ouertania, M., & Gzarab, L. (2008). Tracking product specification dependencies in collaborative design for conflict management. Computer-Aided Design , 40, 828
Ozenc, K., & Fajardo, G. (2021). Rituals for virtual meetings: Creative ways to engage people and strengthen relationships. John Wiley & Sons.
Quesenbery, W., & Szuc, D. (2012). Global UX: Design and research in a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.
Riel, J., & Martin, R. L. (2017). Creating great choices: A leader’s guide to integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Saad, M., Maher, M.L., (1996) Shared understanding in computer- supported collaborative design, Computer Aided Design 28 (3), 183–192
Schrage, M., (2008), No More Teams: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration, Currency Doubleday.
Shen, W., Hao, Q., & Li, W. (2008). Computer supported collaborative design: Retrospective and perspective. Computers in Industry (59), 855–862.
Shneidernan, B. (2000). Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions , 7, 114-138
Sim, S. K., Duffy, A. H. B. (1994), A New Perspective to Design Intent and Design Rationale. Workshop on Representing and Using Design Rationale, AID’94, Lausanne, Switzerland, Aug 1994.
Skelton, M., & Pais, M. (2022). Remote team interactions workbook: Using team topologies patterns for remote working. It Revolution Press.
Smith, P., Blanck, E., (2002), “From experience: leading dispersed teams”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 19 (2002) 294–304
Sonnenwald, D. (1996). Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies , 17, 277–301.
Spetzler, C., Winter, H., & Meyer, J. (2016). Decision quality: Value creation from better business decisions. Nashville, TN: John Wiley & Sons.
Van Der Meulen, M. (2019). Counterintuitivity: Making Meaningful Innovation. Mario Van Der Meulen.
Yamaguchi, S., & Toizumi, K. (2000). Computer Supported Face-to-face Meeting Environment for Architectural Design Collaboration. Proceedings of Advances in Computer-base and Web-base Collaborative Systems (pp. 39–47). Baden-Baden, Germany: InterSymp-99.