Creating Effective Communication Among User-Centered Technology Design Groups

Laura B. Dahl1

Abstract   The user-centered design process among U.S.companies is commonly carried out by design teams.Groups of designers are commonly unable to create highquality work due to the need to first work out severalissues. These issues include needing to get to know oneanother’s capabilities while also learning how toeffectively communicate through the many difficultdecisions and deadlines common to software and Webdesign projects. This chapter describes thecommunication research that illuminates the processthat groups go through before they can achieve highquality results.

Introduction

The user-centered design process among U.S. companiesis commonly accomplished as a team project. Technologydesign and development has become so complex thatmultiple individuals are needed to meet the needs ofengineering, graphics, and user-centered design. Forexample, one enterprise website update might require

1 Laura B. Dahl, M.Ed., Ph.D. CandidateUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City, UT USA 84112email: lbdahl@gmail.com

several engineers who each specialize in one of manypotential coding languages. Several user-centereddesign specialists might also be required, includingone to deal with the information architecture andanother who researches and creates effective userexperience designs. Because many user-centeredtechnology projects involve collaboration andcooperation of a group of experts, each team much learnto work together by communicating effectively.

Such a diverse group of people needs to devote time andenergy in order to become an effective team. Researchfrom small group communication and technology educationcan help explain the process and difficulties that mayarise before a group becomes effective enough to createhigh quality output. This research illuminates the ideathat effective user-centered design is much morecomplex than simply putting experts together. Instead,effective teamwork requires time and development ofseveral communication behaviors, including identityformation, helping, negotiating, and group process.This chapter will describe research relevant totechnology design teams as they attempt to navigate theopportunities and challenges that face them as theymeet the needs and expectations given them.

The Nature of Communication

The approach to communication for this chapter is onethat takes into account the context in which it takesplace. This is a stance where one must know who thespeaker and the hearer are and when and where thecommunication takes place. This idea is unlike the wayspeople make contact over the telephone, or radio and

3

television. This view emphasizes the channels fortransmitting and receiving messages. However, I amusing a description of communication that also meansinteraction, and communication and interaction are usedinterchangeably in this chapter.

When a speaker utters a phrase that has some messagevalue and does so in a particular social situation andat a point in the stream of a conversation, the speakeris both communicating and interacting (Ellis and Fisher1994). She is communicating because the words carrymeaning and content and interacting because themeanings function to express social relationships. Itis impossible to one during group communication withoutthe other.

Yet, design team members have their autonomy and oftenchoose to engage in some communication behaviors andnot in others during certain situations. Each member iscapable of free will and choice. This choice is notrandom; instead, each member chooses to behave on whatis considered appropriate in a given situation. Often,choice to participate is limited in the sense that manyalternatives are eliminated based on past exchanges.Team members may not be aware of these constraints, butthey submit to them anyway. For example, they speak ina way common to the design team using the specificrules of syntax and meaning that conforms to thoserules, even though they may not be aware of the rulesthat constrain their choices.

Because members of a design team are professionalswishing to find success in their work, they often honorthe constraints placed upon their communicative acts.Design team managers would be wise to consider thisreality, and should create a space of open and honest

4

communication that allows for a developing interactionthat promotes creativity.

History of Communication Research on Team Process

Groups go through stages of development and abilitiesbefore they can make effective decisions and accomplishhigh quality tasks. Communication scholars have longstudied the characteristics involved with successfulgroup work. Much of this work was in line with apositivist viewpoint emphasizing control and precisionwhile favoring the laboratory experiment overnaturalistic data collection strategies. However, thisimportant research did find that group work andcollaboration does not come easy. Rather, it requirestime and development of several communication behaviorsbefore high quality decisions and task outcomes becomeapparent.

Group process is the term used to describe the stagesthat teams go through before achieving high qualityoutput. Several early pundits identified stages ofgroup development from the vast small groupcommunication research during the first half of thetwentieth century. For example, Charrier (1974), anemployee of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a summary ofgroup development based on earlier laboratory work. Theoriginal document was written to help group managers athis company better understand the dynamics of teamwork.Tuckman (1965; 1977) used a meta-analytical method tocontrast and combine results from the previous thirtyyears of controlled, laboratory studies of small

5

groups. Both Charrier and Tuckman described similar anddistinct stages that groups must go through in a linearfashion to achieve maximum effectiveness, including (1)formation and orientation (politeness), (2) catharsisand learning how to work together (hostility andconfrontation), (3) normalizing (focus, action, andtesting), (4) performing (purposive and efficient), and(5) adjourning. Although this work helped to explainwhat happens within teams, it viewed group process assimple, isolated, and static.

In contrast to the linear sequence models, McGrath(1991) articulated a theory of groups based on years ofhis own and colleagues’ empirical research. Thisresearch was a response to the laboratory-drivenstudies that assumed groups exist in isolation, whileignoring the physical, temporal, and social context ofthe environment. He argued that groups are embeddedwithin larger social communities, organization,neighborhoods, and departments. Rarely do these groupswork on simple tasks; instead, he argued that mostgroups are engaged in tasks and goal directedactivities that often result in project completion. Byobserving short-term groups in their social context, hedetermined that groups engage in four modes of groupactivity, including inception, technical problemsolving, conflict resolution, and project completion.These modes are potential, not required, forms ofactivity and groups are always involved in one oranother of these modes. For example, the modes ofinception and completion are involved in all groupgoals and tasks, but technical problem solving andconflict resolution may or may not be necessary for anyspecific group activity.

6

Similarly, Poole et al.’s (1989; 1993; 1996) groupprocess model was a response to the idea that groupdecisions develop in a single, universal set of stages.Instead, groups may evolve along any of severalalternative sequences. Consistent through all thesestudies was the observation of short-term, face-to-facegroups embedded within their social context duringdecision tasks. The researchers carefully devisedcomplex tasks, such as “formulating federal regulatoryrules to setting dormitory policies to analyzing amanagement case study” (Poole et al. 1993). Thetheoretical construct that developed out of severalyears of researching short-term decision-making groupswas named the Multiple-Sequence Model of GroupDevelopment. This modern and widely accepted modelargues that groups work concurrently on threeinterlocking activity tracks that are necessary forteam development: (1) task-process activity (used tomanage the task), (2) relational activities (used tomanage interpersonal relationships), and (3) topicalfocus (issues of concern to a group). A group may beworking primarily on one of these activity tracks atany given time, and group life is sometimes interruptedby “breakpoints” or changes in conversation that markthe shift to a new track. However an individual designteam communicates, all tracks, including relationshipbuilding, are necessary to the success of a team.Poole’s model is widely accepted and helps to explainthe process that groups go through before they canachieve high quality success. More recent research hasdescribed other factors that influence group processincluding changing group membership, learning how tocommunicate effectively, and even conflict.

7

Contemporary Research into Group Process

New Groups

Groups are new when either first formed or when a newmember joins. These groups begin a phase characterizedby lack of unity and unfamiliarity with each member’sskills and potential to contribute. Although somemembers may already be familiar with others’ skills andexpertise, not all members are aware of the knowledge,norms, and performance expectations of a group (Brown2013). Each member comes with their own preconceivedideas and norms, and this exhibits as individualismthat is contrary to the goals and needs of the group.This period is usually marked by introductions andsmall talk, so it takes time for people in a group todevelop relationships that contribute to each member’sability to have enough empathy and rapport to getthrough negotiations and effective decision making forhigh quality output. At this point, decision-making andtask output is only as good as the best group member.

Key to creating a shared meaning for the group iscommunication behaviors that promote good interpersonalrelationships (Barge 1996). For example, self-disclosure—sharing of personal information—is criticalat this stage for learning about one another. Thecommunication acts that people use during this stagequickly become the norms by which groups operate, soopen sharing and discussion are essential to the futuresuccess. An effective tool for making norms andexpectations explicit is to develop a team charter orset of goals. Such a tool is a first step in setting

8

group expectations and deadlines. Hillier (2012)described the use of written goals as a tool forconflict resolution. For example, a group memberattempting to mediate an awkward conversation may beginby stating, “we talked about this in the charter andall agreed that…” This early agreement can also act asan instrument throughout the life of the group as itdevelops new norms to ensure appropriate teamfunctioning.

Developing Groups

Group Identity

Critical to getting past the initial stage and throughthe life of a group is continued communication forbuilding and maintaining relationships, discussingrelevant project topics, and accomplishing tasks (Barge1996; Hirokawa and Poole 1996). Yet, effectivecollaboration among design teams only occurs once eachmember identifies with his/her group (Wenger 1998;Wenger et al. 2002). Group identification is defined byin-group favoritism and discrimination against out-groups (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Design team membersidentify with the group when they see themselves asbelonging to the same social category, share someemotional involvement, and achieve some consensus aboutthe team and their membership in it. Yet, a sharedsocial identity often develops through theindividuality and heterogeneity of group members(Postmes et al. 2005). For example, the wide variety of

9

backgrounds and skills within a design team has thepotential to develop a strong solidarity.

Triandis (1995) reported group identity could beinfluenced by diverse cultures, due to uniquecommunication styles. Such disparate social patternscan impact the communication behaviors leading towardgroup identity. Because many software and Web designteams are now international and multicultural, it isimportant to understand that members may come to agroup with different understandings of how tocommunicate effectively. For example, the socialpatterns of individualism and collectivism regardsocial harmony differently. Individualism ischaracterized by loosely linked individuals who viewthemselves as independent of collectives and who givepriority to their own goals over others. Collectivismis a social pattern consisting of closely linkedindividuals who see themselves as part of one or morecollectives (work group, family, tribe, nation).

Comparatively, members of collective cultures viewthemselves with a “we” identity, while those in anindividualistic culture draw on an “I” identity.Members of collectivistic cultures are concerned withmaintaining relational harmony, which can sometimeslead to groupthink. Such a problem state occurs when agroup makes faulty decisions in an attempt to maintaincohesiveness. Janis (1971) and Rosander (1998) arguethat such groups do take advantage of the mentalefficiency of many and fail to reality test. Incontrast, members of individualistic cultures emphasizeself-realization and individuality (Hirokawa 2003),often leading to conflict and difficulty incollaborative agreement. Individualism and collectivism

10

are two uncommon extremes when looking at the completemakeup of many design teams. Although members candiffer in their incoming social patterns, over time agroup develops its own social norms throughrelationship building and discussion about tasks (Pooleand DeSanctis 1989). The resulting group identity andcohesion can mitigate the problems associated withindividualism and collectivism.

Although it is clear through the literature and groupresearch that group identity is an important componentof effective communication, group identity inprofessional design groups may not appear easily or bea priority. Further research is needed of real groupsto ascertain how identity plays a role in working taskcompletion and decision making. However, continued andprolong communication often promotes group identity,and the following sections describe behaviors thatoften helps individuals identify with group members.

Continued and Prolonged Communication Develops Group Identity

According to Johnson et al. (1991), five overarchingelements promote coordinated efforts among members todevelop group identity: individual accountability,frequent interaction, social skills, group processingdiscussion, and positive interdependence.

Individual Accountability

Individual accountability is defined as both theindividual and other group members are aware of amember’s performance toward a task. The purpose of

11

cooperative groups is to make each member stronger, andaccountability is the key to ensuring that all groupmembers are, in fact, strengthened.

Individual accountability results in members knowingthey cannot “free loaf” on the work of others. Lack offollow through can be an issue when it is difficult toidentify each members’ offered work, when contributionsare redundant, and when individuals do not feelresponsible for the final outcome (Whitworth and Biddle2007). Instead, each member should be assigned a taskand become accountable to its completion, as is commonwithin most design teams. This personal responsibilityinvolves contributing his or her efforts towardaccomplishing the group’s goals and helping other groupmembers do likewise. The greater the cohesion and groupidentity among a design team, the more members willfeel personally responsible for contributing theirefforts toward accomplishing the collective goals.

Whitworth and Biddle (2007) interviewed 22 individualson software design teams about their experiencecollaborating with Agile practices. They found that byregularly communicating as a group to assign smallchunks of action, design teams developed a high levelof social support and accountability. Such is theresult of constant feedback to individuals throughdaily and weekly team meetings, where awareness ofgroup activity and commitment to shared goals iscommunicated. Interviewees viewed sharing knowledge andreceiving feedback mutually as common knowledge, whichcould then be used as a basis for action that isapproved by the entire team.

Consequences within these cohesive teams for poorquality or incomplete work were highly social rather

12

than disciplinary. Instead, accountability was seen toresult from frequent questioning or joking aboutindividual action (or inaction) during a clear andpublic expression of the need to follow through on thetask. Sometimes, members expressed disappointment ordisapproval in front of the group, but when responseswere elicited that explained difficulties or problemscompleting a task, the team replied with understandingand support. Such group acceptance and awarenessresulted in an increased sense of individualresponsibility and self-worth regarding projectassignments.

Positive interdependence

Positive interdependence involves the collectivefeeling of “we” instead of “me.” Group members have toknow that they either sink or swim together. It ispositive interdependence that requires group members towork together to accomplish something beyond individualsuccess. Once it is well understood, interdependencehighlights that each group member’s efforts arerequired and indispensable, while each person has aunique contribution to make because of his or her ownunique knowledge and resources.

Yet, interdependence is a matter of trust among designteam members. Trust is characterized by the belief thatcolleagues within the team possess the knowledge,confidence, and integrity to complete their assignedtasks. This trust is enhanced among professional teamswhen members help each other (Mayer and Davis 1995).Conversely, trust declines when individuals see otherson the team not fulfilling their obligations or see

13

them as incongruent to accepted norms (Piccoli and Ives2003).

McHugh et al. (2012) observed and documented threesoftware design teams using highly collaborativepractice. Over six-months, they interviewed andobserved the practices of designers, business analysts,developers, scrum masters, product owners, and qualityassurance personnel. Each team held a daily “standup”meeting in which transparency and visibility wasprovided on the day-to-day task progression. Individualaccountability manifested through reporting of taskadvancement and potential delays. These reviews andsummaries provided the transparency and visibilityneeded to quickly seek clarification when delaysoccurred. Immediate discussion was then carried out toimprove work processes. All these communicativebehaviors resulted in trust among their members; trustwas augmented by an increase in transparency,accountability, communication, knowledge sharing, andfeedback.

Regular and Frequent Interaction Practices

The discipline of cooperation includes ensuring thatgroup members meet to work together to discuss tasksand promote each other’s success. Collaborative designpractices, such as those found in Agile teams, promoteregular planned and unplanned interactions. To achievegroup identity, members need to do real work together,while interacting and discussing the activities. Suck“promotive interaction” exists when people encourageand facilitate each other’s attempts to complete tasksmeant to meet group goals. Through promoting each

14

other’s success, group members build a personal supportsystem for one another. Johnson et al. (1991)recommended three steps to encourage and promote thisinteraction among defined groups: (1) scheduled timefor the group to meet, (2) highlight interdependencethat requires members to work together to achieve thegroup’s goals, and (3) promote encouragement andfacilitation of each other’s efforts.

Ultimately, promotive interaction over long-term mayhave greatest effect on high-quality outcomes. Enactingpositive interdependence powerfully influences effortsto achieve, caring and committed relationships, andsocial competence. Such promotive interaction ischaracterized by members providing each other withefficient and effective help and assistance, whiledoing the varied work of exchanging needed resources,discussing information efficiently and effectively,providing each other with feedback to improvesubsequent performance, challenging one another’sconclusions and reasoning to promote higher-qualitydecision-making, and being motivated to strive formutual benefit. Groups developing an identity do realwork together.

Brown, Lindgaard, and Robert (2011) studiedcollaborative events and interaction designers anddevelopers at four companies. All the design teams werejointly motivated by project goals and project-specificoutcomes. Collaborative work and interactions served toclarify project aims; it regularly shifted andrealigned individual activity, because it wasintertwined with other team members. For example,design ideas were presented that enhanced, eliminated,or constrained something from the software interface.

15

Questions would then be posed that reflected on orchanged how a design idea might be an assumption, gap,or capability.

Social Skills Development

In cooperative design teams, members are required tosuccessfully discuss subject matter while also usinginterpersonal and small group skills required tofunction as part of a group. When good teamwork skillsare not used, task work will tend to be substandard.However, better teamwork skills usually result inhigher quality and quantity of project outcomes.Several communication behaviors are characteristic ofhigh quality teamwork skills and should be practicedand used as design teams work together. These skillsgenerally include communication behaviors includingfunctioning, formulating and fermenting.

Functioning Functioning skills are those needed tomanage the group’s activities and completing the taskand maintaining effective working relationships. Allmembers need to be able to share their ideas andmaterials. Individuals need to ask questions to getothers to share their ideas and thinking processes. Byasking for facts and reasoning, group members can thenunderstand, discuss, and correct each other’s thinking.Continued discussion should include helping the groupmove ahead rather than staying stalled for lack ofdirection. All members should be encouraged toparticipate. For example, other members can be asked toshare what they are thinking or what their ideas are,because individuals begin to feel that their ideas arevalued. Furthermore, essential to building

16

relationships among design team members is theexpressing of support and acceptance. Support can beexpressed both verbally and nonverbally. Nonverbalsupport begins as eye contact, nodding, and a look ofinterest. Verbal support could include praising andseeking others’ ideas and conclusions.

Formulating Formulating skills are those necessaryfor providing the conceptual structures needed to builddeeper levels of understanding and stimulating the useof higher quality reasoning strategies. These skillsinclude: summarizing out loud what has been discussed,seeking accuracy by asking for clarifications andpointing out relevant ideas or facts, and asking thatall members vocalize their implicit reasoning processesthereby making ideas and information open to correctionand discussion.

Fermenting Fermenting skills are those needed tostimulate reconceptualization of ideas, cognitiveconflicts, the search for more information, andcommunication of the rationale behind one’sconclusions. These skills are aimed at causing groupmembers to dig deeper into the material, and theysometimes involve challenging other group members bycriticizing ideas while communicating respect for them.

Design teams can think more divergently about an issueby finding out how other members think about it. Onceall opinions are compared and contrasted, ideas can besynthesized and integrated into one position thateveryone can agree on. This step can sometimes involveconflict, yet continued discussion and negotiation canmove members beyond disagreement to the state ofagreement. As members understand that argument does notequate with conflict, they may feel comfortable

17

negotiating and disagreeing with other group members.Such negotiation has the potential to create high-quality decisions critical for user-centered design.

Because technology creation groups are oftencharacterized by diverse experts, tasks are usuallydivided according to expertise. This results in varyingviewpoints that require negotiation. Such negotiationwill not become effective until a group has developedto the point where members understand how to workthrough difficult communication. As a group workstowards consensus, members of differing opinions can beasked to justify their stance based on facts andreasoning. Any valid ideas should be valued andconsidered when synthesizing and making finaldecisions. For example, Whitworth (2008) interviewedmembers of highly collaborative software developmentteams who exhibited well-developed social skillsenabling them to work together better. She found thatthese teams were often associated with a positivecollaborative climate that can contribute to highperformance. Daily meetings among the teams gave aconstant immersion and engagement of members, as wellas the development of norms and rituals surroundingteam activity. Such regular interaction encouragedmembers to feel closer to the project team and identifywith it. This identification increased feelings ofbelonging, security, comfort, and willingness tocooperate in the team. Such feelings create a safeplace for members to practice their functional,formulating, and fermenting skills. For instance,several fermenting skills were evident when dailymeetings had a mediating and balancing effect onproject activity. Requests for task completion were

18

negotiated regarding feasibility and time constraintsduring team discussion involved realistic goal setting.

Group Decision Making

Ellis and Fisher (1994) described a heuristic for groupdecision making based on a standard set of steps meantto create a space of good decision making. Thisprescriptive decision making is based on the “ideal”process, based on a rational approach to problemsolving. The steps in this model are useful and can beapplied in many situations.

Generating Ideas

Design is largely a difficult and messy interaction(Cooper and Cronin 2007). Designers are often asked toimagine and define something that has never been seenbefore, while creating technology on an ambitiontimeline. Each team must develop a sophisticatedunderstanding of complexity, while balancing prioritiesand understanding limitations and opportunities. As adesign team faces the need to find solutions is thisstressful space, it may be even more critical to followa prescriptive method for decision making.

All groups must first generate information and ideasthat members can use. It is a mistake to think thatideas and creativity can simply emerge. Each designgroup must make a concentrated effort to increase itssupply of useable information.

19

Comparative analysis. This technique is meant to drawinspiration from other technology designs. The ideahere is not to copy another design in such a way thatcan lead to copyright infringement. Instead, acomparative analysis is meant to make comparisonsacross many different resources while each givesinspiration that adds to creativity.

To effectively do a comparative analysis, each teammember should call out inspiration from another source,even if it is the smallest idea. One group membershould be responsible for recording the ideas on alarge and visible pad. After members have contributedmany ideas, the group should go back to the list andbegin paring it down and evaluating how these new ideascan contribute to the design.

Brainstorming. This technique is meant to stimulate thegroup’s creativity, while eliminating some of thecommunicative constraints, especially criticism andevaluation. The essential technique for brainstormingis to disallow any criticism or evaluation of an ideapresented by any group member, until the session’sconclusion. This is crucial during brainstormingbecause fear of criticism often stifles creativity. Asgroup members realize they will not be criticized fortheir ideas, they often relax and increase in ideas asthey begin to flow forth.

The group should record every idea so it is availableto everyone. Writing the ideas on a large pad orwhiteboard makes this feasible. Do not spend too muchtime on brainstorming for ideas. A few hours should besufficient for getting all they ideas out to the open.If you find your ideas getting repetitious, it is agood idea to stop. After group members have produced

20

many ideas, they can return to the list and beginparing it down to the best ideas, while applyingcritical thinking techniques so as to eliminate weak orunworkable ideas and focus on the best ones.

Decision Making Strategies

After a group generates ideas and information, it mustbegin making decisions. Although the decision makingapproach described here is no guarantee to qualitydecisions, using an orderly approach to decision makingusually improves the likelihood the group will besuccessful (Hirokawa and Poole 1996). The modeldescribed here is the Rational Reflection Model(Siebold 1992), based in part on Dewey’s (1916)reflective model but containing major additions fromcurrent research.

In the Rational Reflection approach, design groupmembers work through a series of steps designed to helpthem reflect on dimensions of a problem in a rationalmanner. The group is meant to proceed through each stepand communication is limited to characteristics of theproblem under consideration.

Define and limit the problem. The group begins bydefining and setting boundaries on the problem. Bydetermining the problem’s scope early on, the group isbetter able to also limit the discussion required forfinding a final solution. Ideally, each member of thegroup should have input and agree upon what the problemincludes and does not include.

21

Ellis and Fisher (1994) recommend several tips forproceeding through the discussion about defining theproblem:

1. Define the problem specifically by phrasing it asa question.

2. Determine the importance of the problem to thegroup.

3. Discuss group goals related to the problem.4. Identify resources available to the group related

to the issue.5. Clarify all constraints, including meeting times

and due date.

Analyze the problem and gather information. This is theprimary essence of the decision-making process.Successful groups do not jump quickly into the solutionphase; instead, they spend time on the step beforesuggesting solutions (Hirokawa and Poole 1996). Thepurpose of this step is to collect information andevidence, helping the group explore and clarify theproblem. The following are important issues for theproblem analysis stage:

1. Review information about your audience andpersona(s).

2. Research the history and causes of the problem.3. Discuss how the problem relates to other issues.4. Collect information relevant to the problem and

discuss this information.5. Challenge the facts and assumptions to make sure

they stand the test of scrutiny.6. Finally, make sure you have enough information

Establish decision criteria. At this stage, the groupdecides what criteria meet an acceptable decision. The

22

group should come to a consensus on specific criteria,and these should provide methods of evaluation. If thedecision criteria are properly developed, they willhelp the design team recognized acceptable decisionproposals while rejecting inappropriate ones.

During this stage the group’s discussion should focuson what an ideal decision would look like, what itwould include and exclude. They should decide what isreasonable as a final decision, even one less thanideal because it may not be possible to reach an idealdecision. Finally, the group should consider what wouldbe valid and feasible about the decision.

Discuss possible solutions. Now is the time to discussthe most useful solutions. It is important to waituntil this stage because premature discussion ofsolutions is often associated with poor decision-making(Ellis and Fisher 1994). Now that the group has gonethrough the previous stages, it is now in a much betterposition to examine solutions.

The goal of this stage is to come up with as many ideasas possible. Seek quantity before quality. Do not beafraid to propose as many alternatives as possible,while recording every suggestion regardless of howabsurd it might be. Before finishing this phase,consider the following questions:

1. Have all possible solutions been considered?2. What evidence is in support of each alternative?3. Has the group use brainstorming techniques to

produce ideas?

Determine the best solution. This stage is the pointwhere the group agrees on a final solution. A designteam does this by testing the possible solutions

23

against the decision criteria it established earlier.The goal is to find the best solution to yourdiscussion in light of the decision criteria, includingfeasibility and desirability. The team should discardany unsatisfactory solutions, while concentrating itsdiscussion on the remaining alternatives and makingsure the discussion includes minimizing the problem,making it workable, and comparing its advantages todisadvantages.

Determine how to implement the final solution. Once afinal decision has been reached, the group must thenimplement a solution. This discussion should includeassignment to individuals for the various tasks.

Effective group work is influenced by the success ofhow well the group functions. As a result, groupmembers should take time to examine the process bywhich they are making decisions and completing tasks.Group members should take time to review feedback whileanalyzing and reflecting upon it. Each group shouldthen work to improve the quality of its task work andteamwork by setting improvement goals. Groups shouldalso celebrate the successes of both teamwork and taskwork.

Brown (2013), a co-owner of a user experience designfirm, argued for the need to educate design teammembers so they are better prepared to use effectivecollaboration and productive conflict. Productiveconflict among design team members is not necessarilydivisive and turbulent; it is a process for arriving ata shared understanding. Negotiation and disagreementshelp to clarify and refine decisions about a project.Through conflict and shared ideas and knowledge, designteams align in their comprehension of the project’s

24

direction, approach, and outcome. Conflict should beaddressed and resolved through conversation anddecision-making. Sometimes, conflict can be madeevident through misunderstandings, egos, anddisinterest. Brown maintained that designers must learnhow to work with the diverse people on their teamthrough frequent interaction. They must take time tocultivate rapport and empathy for team members mitigatethe muddy characteristics that can plague them.

Characteristics of an Effective Team

The literature on small group communication hasdemonstrated a number of group interactioncharacteristics that are clearly different in newlyformed as compared to longer-term designed grips. Thesecharacteristics have implications for the kind of give-and-take discussion that is essential to group identityand team effectiveness, regardless of the setting.

A highly effective team is able to design technologyprojects at a much higher quality than an individual.Such an outcome occurs through group maturity resultingin identity that improves the quality and effectivenessof group member participation. A number ofcharacteristics have been observed among such highlyeffective teams. These groups have greater solidarity(Postmes et al. 2001). Group members are highlymotivated to do well (Brandon and Hollingshead 1999).These groups have better interpersonal relationshipsthat allow them greater freedom to talk and shareopenly. Members of these groups find greatersatisfaction, effective decision-making, and

25

orientation to the task. They are better able to formsocial-emotional roles with others in the group, andthis allows them to better deliberate throughnegotiation (Wang 1994; Edwards and Harwood 2003).Members are more willing to help each other. They havea greater awareness as each other’s skills andabilities. Group members have a greater ability toshare information effectively. They also have awillingness to disagree, and may have discovered apreferred method for resolving conflict. Because theyhave learned how to collaborate and work together, theyexperience an improved ability to complete difficultintellectual tasks.

All members of a mature and effective team havedeveloped a common system of goals and needs. Membersof these groups exhibit the strongest task and goalinterdependence. This period of interaction is at itsmost complex as each member strives towards commongoals. All sources of the team combine to make this acondition of greatest potential. Such a state is apotential because in every situation you cannot beassured that all individuals are willing and able tocarry out the tasks very for high quality output.However, a design team that is already stacked with thenecessary roles to complete a task has a greater chanceof meeting high quality expectations.

Implications for User-Centered Design Teams

Give groups time and experiences (meetings orotherwise) together to give them the opportunity to getto know one another, including their expertise and

26

skill set. Once a group gets to know one another, theyneed many opportunities to interact and work out how towork together well. This type of communication does notcome easy, but it is necessary so that team membersunderstand how to communicate effectively when workingthrough difficult decisions and tasks.

Group members must be willing to participate in teamproject meetings and relational building times. Thesuccess of team negotiation and decision-making hingeson members’ willingness to participate in sometimesdifficult communication behaviors, including conflict.Among U.S. design teams, conflicts are normal.Productive conflict and negotiation are importantskills to making a team effective resulting in high-quality output. However, negative conflict can damage agroup’s ability to work, so it should be dealt with.

Group identity matters. Creating a group identity ismore than having a team name. Such an identity is builtthrough frequent interaction where members learn how toeffectively work together. Group maturity and identityare the necessary ingredients for effective, high-quality output. Group identity through extensiveinteraction results in individual accountability,interdependence, willingness to share information anduse promotive interaction, increased social skills, andability to improve group work. These are allcharacteristics that make a highly effective designteam that is capable of great work that benefits users.

27

Definitions

Agile: Agile software design is based on iterative andincremental development, where requirements andsolutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing and cross-functional teams. This processpromotes adaptive planning, creative development anddelivery, a time-boxed iterative approach, whileencouraging rapid and flexible response to change. Forexample, many agile teams meet daily to discuss andcollaborate on current development issues.

Group identity: Group identification is defined by in-group favoritism and discrimination against the out-group. Some degree of compatible group interests mustexist for cohesion to occur among members.

Group process: Groups require successive communicationbehaviors to proceed from a low-performing,introductory group to one outputting high-quality workbecause members experience high cohesion. Group processtakes time and development of group identity andability to communicate well.

References

Barge JK (1996) Leadership Skills and the Dialectics ofLeadership in Group Decision Making. In: Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 301–342

Brandon DP, Hollingshead AB (1999) Collaborative Learning and Computer-Supported Group. Communication Education 48:1–19.

28

Brown DM (2013) Designing Together. Pearson Education

Brown JM, Lindgaard G, Biddle R (2011) Collaborative Events and Shared Artefacts: Agile Interaction Designers and Developers Working Toward Common Aims. In: 2011 AGILE Conference. IEEE, pp 87–96

Charrier GO (1974) Cog's ladder: a model of group development. The 1974 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators

Cooper A, Cronin RRD (2007) About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. John Wiley & Sons

Dewey J (1916) Democracy and Education. The Macmillan company

Edwards C, Harwood J (2003) Social Identity in the Classroom: An Examination of Age Identification Between Students and Instructors. Communication Education 52:60–65.

Ellis DG, Fisher BA (1994) Small Group Decision Making:Communication and the Group Process. McGraw-Hill, New York

Hillier J, Hillier J, Dunn-Jensen LM, Dunn-Jensen LM (2012) Groups Meet... Teams Improve: Building TeamsThat Learn. Journal of Management Education. doi: 10.1177/1052562912459947

Hirokawa RY (2003) Communication and Group Decision-Making Efficacy. In: Small Group Communication: Theory & Practice. Rosbury Publishing Co, Los Angeles, pp 125–133

Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (1996) Communication and Group Decision Making. SAGE Publications, Incorporated

Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psychology Today 5:43–46.

29

Johnson D, Johnson R (1991) Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity, Jossey-Bass. Jossey-Bass

Mayer R, Davis J (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management …

Mcgrath JE (1991) Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups. Small Group Research 22:147–174. doi: 10.1177/1046496491222001

McHugh O, Conboy K, Lang M (2012) Agile Practices: The Impact on Trust in Software Project Teams. IEEE Software 1–6.

Piccoli G, Ives B (2003) Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams. MIS Quarterly 27:365–395.

Poole MS (1996) Group communication and the structuringprocess. In: Small Group Communication: Theory & Practice, 7 ed. Brown & Benchmark, Madison, WI, pp 85–95

Poole MS, Holmes M, Watson R, DeSanctis G (1993) Group Decision Support Systems and Group Communication: AComparison of Decision Making in Computer-Supportedand Nonsupported Groups. Communication Research 20:176–213. doi: 10.1177/009365093020002002

Poole MS, Roth J (1989) Decision Development in Small Groups V Test of a Contingency Model. Human Communication Research 15:549–589.

Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of personality and …

Postmes T, Spears R, Lee AT, Novak RJ (2005) Individuality and Social Influence in Groups:

30

Inductive and Deductive Routes to Group Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:747–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747

Siebold DR (1992) Making Meetings More Successful: Plans, Formats, and Procedures for Group Problem-Solving. In: Small Group Communication, 6 ed. Dubuque, IA, pp 178–191

Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, pp 1–19

Tuckman BW (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63:384.

Tuckman BW, Jensen MAC (1977) Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Management 2:419–427. doi: 10.1177/105960117700200404

Wang AY (1994) Pride and Prejudice in High School Gang Members. Adolescence 29:279–291.

Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

Whitworth E (2008) Experience Report: The Social Natureof Agile Teams. In: Agile 2008 Conference. IEEE, pp429–435

Whitworth E, Biddle R (2007) The Social Nature of AgileTeams. Agile 2007 1–11.