Group Short Assignment 1: Innovating a New Kitchenware in Teams

As people pay more attention to their health, they would like to cook some special food by themselves. The modern life is busier and busier, and people have no time to cook, especially about the breakfast. We want to develop a new product to fry dumpling conveniently. 

Scenario 1:

There are 3 members in our product development team. Kio is the supervisor, and team members must get the approval from him when they have any idea. Karol and Jenny have no right to keep on doing what they want because Kio will instruct the rest of the team on what is the next direction. At the beginning, everything looks normal, but after some time, there is no progress. No matter what ideas Viva and Jenny gave, Kio must point out some negative aspects, so they are angry about all the thoughts overruled. Additionally, laughing is not allowed, and no team member is allowed to talk without the permission to speak from the supervisor. Lack of relaxing atmosphere, all of the members felt passive and helpless.  

In this case, the supervisor has the absolute authority over the tam. The general atmosphere is strictly tense and anxious. Supervisor leads the script writing process and team members are responsible for sharing their ideas in limited conditions. It says the supervisor is more like an emperor and his partners are actually his officials under feudal rules. The top-down communication damages the final effects on both innovation and creation. Because on top of the man in high position, everybody is afraid of speaking out their feelings, and thoughts, especially when certain ideas are rejected. 

However, this method is indeed high efficient. The team accomplished the task and as the presenter, the supervisor presented in an extremely smooth and fluency way, wining a satisfying impression for the whole team.

Finally, the team just thought some improvements of current fry-dumpling machine like adding the cover to avoid splash and automatic temperature control.

Scenario 2:

We have 1 minute pitch to sell to the stakeholders. In the team work, we are free to talk and communicate, and each of us generated contribution to final work. In the group discussion, we have the autonomy to share our new ideas as well as making our own decision on how to present the new product.   The more often we exchanged ideas and information by working together, the more knowledge we would have, which could help the team to maintain a good balance between creativity and work outcome.

As a result of collaborative group, everyone felt loyal to the work and eager to cooperate faithfully with each other. The best evidence is that Kio mentions it is difficult to make the dumplings and control the temperature when you are cooking, and Karol is looking to innovate through combining these steps together.  In the meantime, Jenny takes note of all the possible present methods in 60 seconds. In every discussion, we were encouraged to give new thoughts and comment on others opinions. Someone was responsible to record when we were brainstorming and then we could consider all of the ideas. After that, we discussed and selected the best proposal. It is a good way to create trusting and respectful culture, which contributes to group creativity. Totally different from the exercise 1, we are happy to work together and self-motivated to innovate. 

Finally, we gave the innovative product as following. 

 

NOT HELPFUL !!!!

     
Distinct from Case 1, Case 2 is much more free in team working and ideas sharing. Every one of team has the equal level when working, never being afraid of speaking out individual statements. On one hand, everyone contributes to the project, and each has right to decide, comment, judge, evaluate. On the other hand, the equal communication is, to some extend, time-consuming. If no one pushes forward, the final decision is hardly to come out. Sometimes, people get lost in the equal communication. We feel tired but cannot be aware of the problem behind that.

In terms of creation and marketability, surely case 2 will win. In the situation 1, the long legacy of some principles in the kitchenware company may inhibit a group mate to present his/her pitch. For example, my group has supervisor and it must be supervisor to presents the pitch, no matter who come up with the pitch. And this may highly diminish enthusiasm of Jenny and Karol who raised the idea.According to the exercise 1, Kio will instruct the rest of the team on what is the next direction to proceed with the script writing process, which is NOT helpful in product pitch. Collaboration is about giving ideas and sharing insights together (Tapscott et al., 2009), but not the dictatorship. As a result of collaboration deficiency, it will inhibit the group from arriving effective product pitch.  Because it’s only the supervisor can present the pitch and get a compliment from boss if it’s a good pitch, and yet it is totally not supervisor’s idea. And the people who truly provide the idea may not get anything from boss, including promotion opportunity and the opportunity of taking charge of this project. Actually, Kio may not get the real meaning of the pitch because he needs to listen to Jenny and Karol's presentations first and then present to their boss, which can result in misunderstanding of the presentation and inhibits from arriving at a successful product pitch.

What’s more, “no laughing is allowed “may also stifle passion and result in estrangement of a group. It’s not helpful in communicating and developing product pitch if everyone put on a serious look in the office. According to the Allison Beard’s investigation and the research conducted by The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Laughter can bring many benefits in the working place. Laughter not only can ease working pressure and relieve boredom but also increase workers’ enthusiasm, happiness and participation. Laughter can also facilitate group mates’ innovation capability, teamwork spirit and working efficiency (Beard, 2014). 

Besides, the rule “no talking without permission” is very autocratic that is not helpful in communicating and exchanging ideas freely among group members. No talking without permission will lead to the deficiency of communication and debate. Lack of debate will become a difficult problem in a group, because it may result in another obstacle happened--- lack of Involvement (Lencioni, 2002). If group mates can’t pass their opinions ardently and openly, they cannot really involved in the teamwork and get a unified opinion to make decisions. So this rule also inhibits to form a successful pitch. 

 

HELPFUL!!!

 
In spite of the uncomfortable environment, rules in exercise 1 still have positive effect on group working. Kio decided everything and give the last presentation, so Jenny and Karol must report the new proposal after overruled. The direction controlling of Kio can keep them from wasting time in the wrong routine. Moreover, absolute power could refrain dilemma from various options. Actually, compared with situation 2, we did spend much more time discussing and making decision.



In the situation 2, this is an equal company that follows Pixar’s Operating Principles. From the principles, we can found that this team work focuses more on individual. Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone, it means the company trust people can work out the difficulties and with each other without having to check for permission and people can share and discuss their opinions ardently and openly. With transparency and collaboration increasing, levels of trust and engagement throughout the organization could be strengthened (Tapscott et al., 2009). Only by allowing the freedom of thought collisions, it can spark intelligence shines. This behavior facilitate the generation of more new ideas.

  Ed catmull (2008) once said, if you give a good idea to a mediocre team, they’ll screw it up. But if you give a mediocre idea to a great team, they’ll make it work. In the situation 2, Karol, Jenny and Kio are encouraged to cooperate with each other more closely to form a creative team. When the team presents the pitch collectively, they can give supplementary mutually to make the pitch become more abundant and valuable. And superiors and subordinates have meeting together can arouse thinking collisions and facilitate to arrive at a successful product pitch. And the rule “It must be safe for everyone to offer ideas” ensures that there’s always fresh ideas and thoughts are offered to increase company’s competitiveness and enhance trust among all group mates.

Pixar’s Operating Principles

1. Everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone.

2. It must be safe for everyone to offer ideas.

3. We must stay close to innovations happening in the academic community.

For establishing the trust and creativity in the teamwork, it is widely agreed upon in the literature that the flow of communication within teams influences the success of innovative projects (Griffin and Hauser, 1992). Research by Katz (1982), involving 50 R&D teams, demonstrates a strong positive impact of within-team communication on project success. More recent studies confirm this fundamental finding. Hauptman and Hirji (1996), in their investigation on 50 cross-functional project teams, show that frequent two way communication within teams exerts a positive influence on team performance. In addition, a large-scale empirical study in Germany on the success factors of project management finds communication and information flow to be a direct prerequisite of project success (Gemuenden, 1990). In fact, working in this environment, we have more communications with each other. We continued to provide our opinions, new ideas and comments. And we understood the meaning of each thoughts other members gave. We also trusted the team members could give recommendation.


 

FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS

In Case 1, the tense environment contributes little to the creation producing. If everyone is worrying about the sequel of their ideas, who will truly express their ideas? The supervisor, I think, is not necessary in this case. Focus should be placed in the creative ideas, no judgments, no comments after this pitch. Freedom should be assigned to each team member, and forget everything when discussing. The only thing supervisor should do is to count down the timer and correct the direction when straying from the point. Honestly, equal communication does not play well in every respect. In the given topic, freedom of sharing is the top priority. But maybe in some other situations, efficiency and productivity are the top concerned. 

 

In case 2, it is recognizable that the atmosphere is much more comfortable and relaxing. Nevertheless, it does not stand that we do not need to readjust our mind-set and behavioral habits. According to Kramer (2009), most of people mistakenly have confidence in that trustworthiness is obvious. Therefore, it is obligatory for members to signal trustworthiness more clearly. By the same token, we should retaliate strongly when our trust is abused. Sending weak signals about our willingness to engage in trust or punish abuse of it makes us more vulnerable to exploitation.

The perception of project success depends, in part, on the perspective of the evaluator. Thus, it is important to include multiple views (e.g., of the company, the customer, the team) when rating team performance. It must also be acknowledged that setting clear and precise performance objectives at the outset of a project is particularly difficult in the case of innovations because the subject matter is often highly complex and uncertain (Hauschildt, 1997).

For the purpose of the present study, team performance is described in terms of the variables effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness refers to the degree to which the team meets expectations regarding the quality of the outcome. In the case of innovative projects, an effective performance regularly entails adherence to predefined qualitative properties of the product, service, or process to be developed, e.g., functionality, robustness, reliability, performance, etc. The team’s efficiency is assessed in terms of adherence to schedules, e.g., starting the manufacturing and/or marketing on the target date, and budgets, e.g., staying within target costs with both the project and the finished product. Thus, effectiveness reflects a comparison of actual versus intended outcomes, whereas efficiency ratings are based on a comparison of actual versus intended inputs.

 

References:

1. Beard, A. (2014). Does your team can hear laughter? Business Administration, 6, 59–60.

2. Catmull, Ed. (2008). How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard Business Review.

3. Hoegl, M., &  Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 441-442

4. Kramer, M. R. (2009). Spotlight on trust: Rethinking trust. Harvard Business Review.

5. Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. US: Jossey–Bass.

6. Tapscott, D., Erickson, T., Gratton, L., Cross, R., & Capek, F. (2009). Building the Collaborative    

7. Enterprise:Ten Questions to Ask about Business Opportunities through Collaboration

Griffin, A., J. R. Hauser. (1992). Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing: A comparison between two new product development teams. Management Sci. 38(3) 360–373

8. Hauptman, O., Hirji, K. K. (1996). The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: An empirical study of cross-functional teams.IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 43(3)

153–164

9. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administration Science Quart. 22 81–104.

10. Gemuenden, H. G. (1990). Erfolgsfaktoren des Projektmanagements— eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme der empirischen Untersuchungen. Projekt Management 90(2) 4–15.

11. Hauschildt, J. (1997). Innovations management, 2nd ed. Franz Vahlen, Muenchen