How Virtual is Virtual: Designing for Distributed Work in Innovation

Betsy Merck b e t s y @ m e r c k c o n s u l t i n g . c o m m a n d a n a g r o u p . c o m 5 1 0 - 6 6 3 - 1 7 7 9 S O C I O T E C H N I C A L S Y S T E M S R O U N D T A B L E N A T I O N A L S C I E N C E F O U N D A T I O N G R A N T

How Virtual is Virtual: Designing for Distributed Work in Innovation

Supported by NSF-VOSS Award #0943237

Desired Outcomes for this Session

Through dialogue and exercises, we have the opportunity to …

1.  Develop a shared understanding of the implications of virtuality on key conversations across the innovation continuum

2.  Consider how ‘fixes’ differ depending on the degree of uncertainty

3.  Explore the value of coordination mechanisms employed differently across the innovation continuum

4.  Consider the implications for leadership of virtual teams

5.  Contribute to a growing body of research on the impact of virtuality on key conversations across the innovation continuum

April 2012 Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237

Three Research Sites

Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237

  Caltech- Orchid Project: fundamental research, R1   Optical Radiation Cooling and Heating in Integrated Devices   Tightly-Linked Collaboration for Design of Experiments & Device Fabrication among Laboratories

using 3 Technology platforms   Pasadena, Switzerland and Austria   Major challenge: creative research and design and knowledge generation in a complex virtual

setting

  NACC: a virtual R&D eco-system, D2- D4   Comprised of 29 NIA-funded Alzheimers Disease Centers (ADCs) and the National Alzheimers

Coordinating Center Center (NACC)   Major challenge: Create Uniform Data Set agreeing upon and compiling data from the 29

different centers as the basis of research

  LVG: a large video game developer, D3-D4   Core team with distributed vendors in Philippines, China, India, Switzerland,

North America and across the parking lot   Major challenge: Cost effective game development work with high quality and timeliness

completed at a distance for art production, engineering and testing

April 2012

Grant Back-ground

  University of Illinois and STS Roundtable

  Seven member team   3 year grant

  Supported by NSF-VOSS Award #0943237

  In final year of the grant

  Central Research Question: How do virtual modes of

communication influence the quality of deliberations (key conversations) at various stages of the innovation process?


Six Stages of the Innovation Continuum


Pure Research

Work Open Project

Don�t know what we are looking for

Don�t know how to carry out the

research

Applied Research

Work Semi- Open

Project

Don�t know what (i.e. end state or

objective)

Know how to carry out the

research

Exploratory Development

Work Semi- Closed

Project

Know what

Don�t know how to achieve it

Advanced Development

Work Semi- Closed

Project

Know what

Don�t know how in detail to achieve it

Start-Up (pilot plants, beta testing)

Development Work

Closed Project

Know what

Know how to achieve it

conceptually

Scale-Up (volume & costs) Development

Work Closed Project

Know what

Know how to achieve it

operationally

R 1

R 2

D 1

D 2

D 3

D 4

April 2012

The Innovation Continuum


R1 D4

Drive Problem Solving Shape and Reinforce

Converge Convey

Standardization Rules Based

Mutual Adjustment

Peer-to-Peer Hierarchical

Exploration Prescriptive

Uncertainty

Mystery Heuristic Algorithm

Certainty

Key Conversations in Virtual Art Production


Scoping Vendors

Vendor Selection

Defining & Estimating Project Work

Pre-Test & Trial Run

Detailed Documentation & Requirements

Art Assets Deliveries

Initial Testing of Assets

Debugging Re-Negotiating Project Work

Contract Negotiation

Critiques

Critiques

Key Conversations/Deliberations: Definition and Elements


  Key Conversations are patterns of exchange and communication in which people engage with themselves or others to reduce the equivocality of a problematic issue

  The salient elements of a deliberation include the … •  Topics or problematic

issues facing the social entity about which people reflect and communicate

•  Forums in which they occur which may be structured, semi-structured, unstructured or ad hoc

•  Participants - both those who are currently involved and those who ideally should be involved in the deliberation

Examples of Key Conversations/Deliberations


  Orchid   What experiment shall we run?   How shall we design the experiment?   How shall we execute the experiment?   How do we make sense of the results?

 NACC   What data will go in the UDS?   What diagnostic instruments shall we use?   Who will have access to the data?

  LVG   What new features shall we develop?   What contractor shall we use for this work?   What will the requirements be for the contractor?

April 2012

Examples of Knowledge Work Barriers


 Lack of knowledge   In the Orchid project, the technical procedures in two different

laboratories were discovered to be incompatible and initially prevented development of inter-dependent experiments

 Failure to utilize knowledge   In NACC, the perspectives of a few relevant scientific

disciplines (e.g. bio-technicians) appear to have not yet been utilized in the ongoing development of the UDS

  In LVG, corporate intelligence about particular vendor competencies were not initially utilized by an individual division in their vendor selection procedures

April 2012

Knowledge Work Barriers Cont�d


  Failure to share knowledge   In LVG, the test center did not understand the culture of the co-

located team members and the development process   In Orchid, the graduate students were not comfortable sharing �up�

what they saw and/or did not understand- F2F helped build trust   In LVG, due to IP concerns, unable to share �mother� code

  Lack of common frame of reference   In Orchid, experimentalists from different scientific disciplines use

different language and have different approaches to describe and interpret the same data

  In LVG, the developers did not have a common frame of how to conduct tests of the game

April 2012

Exercise Part 1


  Spend 5 minutes and think of a past or present issue that you are aware of, with a team in your organization that has virtual components.

  Where would you place the project on the innovation continuum, R1- D4?

  What is/was the issue? What type of knowledge work barriers do you suspect were at play?

  Let�s share our examples and consider the learnings from our project to your examples

  Large group conversation

April 2012

Our Findings


  The �work� characteristics are similar between face-to-face (F2F) and distributed

  In a high velocity environment, take time early in the process to scope things out clearly with specificity

  F2F is of value across the entire continuum   F2F appears to be critical on the �unknown�/R side of the continuum- where uncertainty is high

  Reliance on divergence greater at R end of continuum, reliance on convergence, standardization higher at D end of continuum

  Failure to utilize knowledge seemed higher in the D3-D4 side of the continuum

  Rich media significantly adds value to coordination, cooperation, communication and commitment

Surprising What We Didn�t Find

  Relatively inconsequential …   Culture   Language   Time difference


Coordination Mechanisms

to Facilitate Innovation between Distributed Collaborators


  Mutual Adjustment   Direct Supervision   Standardization of Work Processes   Standardization of Output   Standardization of Skills and Knowledge   Standardization of Norms

  Henry Mintzberg, 1979

Some Fixes


  Orchid   Temporary, co-location of scientist to build common frame of reference   Co-creation, mutual adjustment of new procedures   Develop personal relationships (trust)

  NACC   Inclusion in conversations/deliberations of key technical staff   Clear, specific standardization of data submittal process   Purposeful social network that supports collaboration

  LVG   Podcasts with the test center and core team during sprint cycles   Create new role of prime contact/supervisor with contractors   �Chunk� requirements of contractors deliverables to ensure on target

April 2012

Implications for Leaders on Virtual Teams


  See your role more broadly- from command and control to coordinate and cultivate- develop your facility to use more tools

  Cultivate the ability to move back and forth across the innovation continuum as needed

  Communicate using appropriate technology   Take time to build relationships   Develop and use processes that support coordination, communication,

vision and direction and norm building   Ensure requirements are clear, specific and understood   Take some risks with processes and technology- experiment and

acknowledge the learning that is transpiring   Be rigorous about monitoring/�chunking� deliverables and progress

April 2012

Exercise Part 2


 Revisiting the issue related to distributed (team)work that you were asked to recall and consider in Exercise 1 –   Was there an attempt to address it?   If so, what was it and how successful was it?   If not successful, why not and what was the overall

outcome of the work?   What do you see as leadership implications?

April 2012

References


  National Science Foundation Voss Team: Doug Austrom, Betty Barrett, Betsy Merck, Bert Painter, Pam Posey, Ron Purser, Ramkrishnan Tenkasi   (Supported by NSF-VOSS award #0943237)

  Toward an Understanding of the Factors Which Enable and Obstruct Learning in New Product Development: An Action Research Study, Center for Effective Organizations, Purser, Pasmore & Tenkasi, 1994

  Six Stage Continuum of the Innovation Process, Bell Labs & Carolyn Ordowich, and the Voss Team 2012

  The Design of Business, Roger Martin, 2009   Six Coordination Mechanisms, Henry Mintzberg, 1979

April 2012

Appendix: Mintzberg�s Coordination Mechanisms in Detail


1.  Mutual adjustment   Coordination of work is made possible by a process of informal

communication between people conducting interdependent work.

2.  Direct supervision   Coordination is achieved by one individual taking responsibility for the

work of others.

3.  Standardization of work processes   Coordination is made possible by specifying the work content in rules

or routines to be followed. Coordination occurs before the activity is undertaken. Mintzberg adopted Taylorism: procedures are usually specified by work-study analysis.

April 2012

Appendix: Mintzberg�s Coordination Mechanisms in Detail


4.  Standardization of output   Coordination is obtained by the communication and clarification of

expected results. The individual actions required to obtain a goal are not prescribed. This goal setting method is closely related to Drucker's Management by Objectives.

5.  Standardization of skills and knowledge   Coordination is reached through specified and standardized training

and education. People are trained to know what to expect of each other and coordinate in almost automatic fashion.

6.  Standardization of norms   Norms are standardized, socialization is used to establish common

values and beliefs in order for people work toward common expectations. Mintzberg added this cultural based mechanism at a later stage.

April 2012