UNIVERSITY OF NORTHUMBRIA

Design Thinking Thesis (DE1049)

Breaking Barriers: Assessing the Value of Multidisciplinary Teamwork for Sustainable Creative Business

Matthew Hailes

MA Multidisciplinary Design Innovation

September 2012

Abstract

Multidisciplinary teamwork is becoming increasingly commonplace in the pursuit of

creativity and innovative solutions. With businesses wanting to retain a competitive edge,

the combination of different disciplines with various skill sets, experience and professional

perspectives to tackle industry problems, is emerging as an attractive prospect. This study

wanted to establish the value placed on multidisciplinary teamwork for sustainable creative

business by gaining insight and the opinion of creative professionals in their current working

environments.

The investigation used face-to-face semi-structured interviews to capture rich qualitative

data, exploring the subject area in more detail, and achieving the aims and objectives of the

study. Based on the information received from selected participants, the mixed creative

industry viewpoint both challenged and complimented the theory provided by the

literature.

The findings identified a range of benefits that multidisciplinary working can offer; from

helping individuals to share knowledge and best practice, to stimulating fresh ideas and

creativity. However, the research also highlighted several challenges that surround a

successful multidiscipline team. Communication difficulties, budget restrictions, the

challenge of measuring success, and team conflict, were all recognised as problems that

limited the value to multi-disciplinary team work. The research emphasised how serious and

complex these limitations are in restricting project progress, with organisations facing cross-

discipline communication issues, differing approaches to integration and a certain resistance

to change.

The significance of the findings exposed the lack of understanding around key aspects of

multidisciplinary working with regard to industry practice and the complex limiting

practicalities that exist in business. The key contribution is in highlighting the current

perceived value of multidisciplinary teamwork and the impact in may have in the future for

creative business.

Contents

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Key Definitions ................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Stimulating Creativity and Innovation ............................................................................... 7

2.3 Complimentary Procedures and Perspectives ................................................................... 9

2.4 Team Structure and Dynamics ........................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Strategy ............................................................................................................ 13

3.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Research participants ...................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Benefits of interviews ...................................................................................................... 14

3.5 Limitations of interviews ................................................................................................. 15

3.6 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Understanding the Terms ................................................................................................ 17

4.3 Stimulating Creativity and Innovation ............................................................................. 18

4.4 Complimentary Procedures and Perspectives ................................................................. 19

4.5 Team Structure and Dynamics ........................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION

6.1 Research Summary .......................................................................................................... 24

6.2 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 25

6.3 Further research .............................................................................................................. 26

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 31

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the MDI program leaders, Mark Bailey and Neil Smith, including the

module tutors: Brenda Stalker, Haydn Jenkins, Tony Purdie, John Stevens and Nick Spencer,

for a great year of study. The course has been both challenging and enjoyable, with a rich

and varied range of projects that have tested and expanded my professional capabilities. I

am confident that my MDI experience has greatly improved my prospects for the future.

I would also like to thank my partner Emily Hampton for a year of continuous understanding

and support.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

“Knowledge is increasingly interdisciplinary and boundary

crossing has become a defining characteristic of the age” (Klein,

1996).

Over the past 20 years, interest in multidisciplinary teamwork has increased significantly

(Poulton and West, 1993; Leathard, 1994; Barr et al, 1999; Dyer, 2007), as organisations

have tried to make their teams more effective and stand apart from their competitors. In

this challenging economic climate and consumer-orientated world, companies are under

intense pressure to do more with less, innovate, and produce better quality in order to

maintain a competitive advantage.

The accelerated pace of product and service change highlights the “need for continuous

innovation and rapid response to market” in order to stave off stagnation and remain

competitive (Henry & Mayle, 2002:63). Innovation, it is argued, is today’s equivalent of the

‘Holy Grail’ with businesses, regardless of type or size, seeing it as the means of survival

(Schumpter, 2011). Acknowledging and accepting that the emerging economies of the world

are an increasing threat for various industry types, creativity and innovation are ways to

“create a viable, attractive future” (Cox, 2005:3).

Recognising “workforce and organisational culture as a source of strategic advantage”

(Henry & Mayle, 2002:62), businesses are reflecting on their team structures and business

strategy. Research suggests that companies are becoming more flexible; abandoning “the

old hierarchical model” of “functional divisions and clear lines of authority,” and instead

adopting “flatter, less bureaucratic structures” (Henry & Mayle, 2002:32). The key to

business success, it seems, is to have a team and business model that can adapt to new

conditions quickly and effectively (Dyer, 2007:9).

It is widely acknowledged that a workforce with specialist knowledge and good general skills

are paramount, reflecting the benefits that a multidisciplinary approach to learning and

business can provide (Bichard cited Cox, 2005; Petts et al, 2008). According to George Cox,

the former Chairman of the Design Council, teams with a fusion of different skills rather

than a traditional ‘mono-discipline’ approach, help to turn “creative ideas into new ways of

thinking and into successful products or services” (Cox, 2005:28). It is argued that in order

for creativity, and consequently innovation, to successfully permeate into business, an

understanding of a multidiscipline language would need to become an integral part of

learning (ibid).

Internationally, education providers are introducing courses focused on multidisciplinary

teamwork to equip tomorrow’s creative specialists, engineers and business professionals

with the skill set needed to prosper. These institutions believe that by producing graduates

with multidisciplinary experience, they are encouraging the future workforce to innovate

and thus help businesses remain competitive and sustainable in the global market.

Clearly, the challenges that organisations currently face, and will face in the future, require

insight into team efficiency and composition rather than visionary dreams or aspirations.

Trends in technology, demographics, regulations, and lifestyles are all part of the shifting

creative landscape (Henry & Mayle, 2002:30; Dyer, 2007:219), and businesses must be

prepared to react.

Could multidisciplinary teams within businesses be a viable solution to these challenges? Or

does this approach bring with it unforeseen problems?

1.2 Rationale

Given the attention that the multidisciplinary approach is receiving from business, the need

for a greater understanding of its values and limitations are critical, making this a very

salient research topic. The large majority of previous research regarding multidisciplinary

teamwork has been related specifically to the health sector (Fay et al., 2006; Fleissig et al.,

2006). This research therefore, intends to provide unique value as the advantages and

disadvantages of multidisciplinary working for creative business is an under-researched

area. The findings intend to provide valuable knowledge for businesses that use, or plan to

use, multidisciplinary teams to create sustainable creative business.

Having had first-hand experience of multidisciplinary team-working as part of a taught

Masters programme, the researcher has acknowledged both the benefits and limitations of

this approach whilst working on a series of live industry-based projects set by a variety of

clients. These projects were often sponsored by established organisations who were

advocates of a multidisciplinary approach for achieving comprehensive outcomes to

common problems. It was observed that this style of approach was possibly hard to

replicate within such companies, and questioned the value placed on the creative outcomes

of such an approach. With this initial insight, the researcher is interested in gaining further

knowledge of the perceived value of multidisciplinary teamwork within creative industries,

with particular attention to the sustainable and continued innovation required of a business.

1.3 Key Definitions

In order to fully address the proposed question, it is important that clear definitions are

established for key terminology used throughout the paper to ensure that any expressed

terms are understood by the reader as intended by the author.

1.3.1: Multi-disciplinary, Inter-disciplinary, Trans-disciplinary, Cross-disciplinary

After more than 40 years of noted team collaboration across various disciplines in both

educational and professional capacities, there have been multiple attempts to define the

terms ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘interdisciplinary’ and more recently ‘transdisciplinary’ (Berger,

1972; Mayville, 1978; Stember, 1991). It seems that these descriptive terms, to some extent,

“defy definition” (Klein, 1990), and the semantic confusion with these expressions has

resulted in them being used interchangeably across “wider literature and official discourse”

(Petts et al, 2008). This has presented a “terminological quagmire” (Leathard, 1994:6).

Before multidisciplinary teamworking can be implemented successfully, it is apparent from

literature that the need for a general consensus of these interchangeable terms is still

necessary (McEwen et al, 2008). According to Leathard (1994), researchers and

professionals lack clarity by using the identified prefixes (‘multi’ and ‘inter’) and adjectives

(‘disciplinary’ and ‘professional’), to describe “members of different professions working

together” (Leathard, 1994 cited Wilson & Pirrie, 2000:3). An advocate of interdisciplinary

working, Professor Joseph Kockelmans (1979), identified the definition of ‘Multidisciplinary

work’, ‘Interdisciplinary work’, and ‘Cross-disciplinary work’ as clearly as possible (Fig 1).

Term DescriptionMultidisciplinary work There may be no connection between disciplines involved.

Interdisciplinary work Parts of existing disciplines are totally integrated into a new discipline or a solution

Cross-disciplinary work Both involve tight coordination among disciplinary parts either in the form of finding a solution to a problem or in the form of development of an overarching framework

Fig 1: Term definitions (Kockelmans, 1979)

When discussing co-development or team collaboration, the over arching term of ‘cross-

disciplinary’ is commonly used as a broader frame of reference that incorporates both

‘interdisciplinary’ and ‘multidisciplinary’ as an understanding of research across disciplines

without specifying the extent of integration between the involved disciplines (DEA/FBE,

2008).

The focus of this paper is around the practice and value of ‘multidisciplinary teamwork’,

which will be used throughout as the reference to “multiple disciplines that cooperate in

their approach to a common topic or problem” (Oxford dictionaries, 2012). However, the

reader may regard it as a synonym for ‘cross-disciplinary’ (DEA / FBE, 2008), with regard to

the interchangeable use still apparent in professional practice (McEwen et al, 2008; Petts et

al, 2008; Wilson & Pirrie, 2000b) . The following diagram (Fig 2) is a simple visual

representation and description of the discussed differentiation between ‘multidisciplinary’

and ‘interdisciplinary’ terminology.

Fig 2. Source: ( DEA / FBE, 2008)

1.3.2: Creativity, Innovation, Design

The Review of Creativity in Business by George Cox in 2005 raised awareness of how

creativity can boost performance and how UK businesses can stay ahead of their rivals by

drawing on the country’s world leading design capabilities. The influential report was

commissioned by the UK Chancellor, who wholly endorsed the recommendations that set

out to broaden the creative skills of future business leaders, technologists and engineers.

The review coherently defined key terms such as creativity and innovation, which will carry

the same meaning when used in this paper:

‘Creativity’ is the generation of new ideas- either new ways of looking at existing problems,

or of seeing new opportunities, perhaps by exploiting emerging technologies or change in

markets.

‘Innovation’ is the successful exploitation of new ideas. It is the process that carries them

through to new products, new services, new ways of running the business or even new ways

of doing business.

(Cox, 2005:2)

1.4 Aims and Objectives

The purpose of this research is to investigate the following:

• The benefits of using a multidisciplinary approach for sustaining creative business;

• The challenges that surround a successful multidiscipline team;

• How existing multidisciplinary theory correlates with current working practise in

creative business;

• How creative professionals envisage the future climate for multidisciplinary teams.

This research will therefore contribute to the current assessment of the value of

multidisciplinary teamwork as an approach for sustainable creative business.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

A schism exists in current theory regarding the value of multidisciplinary teamwork for

infusing creativity, innovation, and sustainable business. Whilst there is a wealth of

literature to support the benefits provided by multidisciplinary teams, other theorists

highlight the limitations that exist.

Whilst research into multidisciplinary teamwork is a relatively new area of study, this review

will examine literature from both contemporary sources related to multidisciplinary teams,

and more dated sources related to teamwork more generally. A review of these empirical

sources will provide further knowledge and insight into the benefits and limitations of this

working practice.

Robert Hargrove, in his influential book Mastering the Art of Creative Collaboration (1998),

claimed that ‘collaboration’ referred to the “desire or need to create or discover something

new, while thinking with others” and suggested that ‘creative collaboration’ involved four

aspects:

- Different views and perspectives

- Shared goals

- Building new shared understandings

- Creation of new value

These characteristics of ‘creative collaboration’ outlined by Hargrove are complimentary to

the foundations of a ‘multidisciplinary team’, and have influenced the structure of the

review.

2.2 Stimulating Creativity and Innovation

In the present competitive market, a continuous flow of ideas is what organisations need in

order to innovate and keep pace with “emergent technologies and new product

development” (Kao, 1997, cited Alves et al., 2007:27). For a long time the term ‘innovation’

has represented the “core renewal process in any organisation,” playing the key role in

sustaining a competitive advantage and creating added value for products and services

(Bessant et al, 2005:1366). Zahra and Covin (1994:183) claimed that “innovation is widely

considered as the life blood of corporate survival and growth”, a notion supported by an

article in The Economist (2002) which states that “innovation is now recognised as the single

most important ingredient in any modern economy”.

Thus with innovation at a premium, the creation of work-based environments and tools to

promote collaboration that systematically create and innovate, will give organisations the

agility needed to compete successfully (Vicenzi, 2000; Cox, 2005; Fantoni et al, 2006).

Creativity that leads to innovation is seldom the result of a singularly gifted individual or

creative ‘genius’. Rather, it is the combination of different styles of thinking that provides

the bridge for creativity to occur (Bilton, 2007; Ke, 2009). Kanter (1988:176) notes that

“creativity often springs up at the boundaries of specialities and disciplines, rather than

squarely in the middle”, supporting the notion that the most effective team for conceiving

creative ideas should be a blend of more than one functional area of expertise; a

multidisciplinary team with the capacity to “generate and develop ideas by switching frames

of reference and challenging each other’s preconceptions” (Bilton, 2007:35).

Yet multidisciplinary innovation is not without its problems. Measuring the value and impact

that ‘group creativity’ and ‘multidisciplinarity’ brings to an organisation is often difficult, and

shows varying amounts of accountable success depending on the level of interfunctional

integration (Wang et al, 1996 cited Vissers & Dankbaar, 2002:40). Judging the success of a

multidisciplinary approach is dependent on the business strategy and the project’s aims and

objectives. The measure of ‘added value’ can be obtained by “looking at the direct bottom-

line impact (profit or loss), or by looking at the impact on the value of the brand (consumer

perception)” (Best, 2006:170).

There are no clear-cut solutions when looking to stimulate creativity and innovation.

Investment towards change and the future is linked with the consideration for its

sustainable long term impact. The risk of increased human and financial overheads, are one

of the many challenges a business will face in the quest for convincing returns against a

traditional approach (Verloop, 2005; Alves, 2007).

Furthermore, the term ‘innovation’ itself is often considered problematic due to its

notorious ambiguity, which “lacks either a single definition or measure” (Adams et al,

2006:22). Both Zairi (1994) and Cooper (1998) have suggested that a more generalised

definition of the term ‘innovation’ that transcends different disciplines would be beneficial.

However despite these limitations, it has been found that environments that support

multidisciplinary teams in the pursuit of innovative ideas, provide solutions with more

intrinsic value (Roper & Brooks, 1999; Hargadon, 2003).

2.3 Complimentary Procedures and Perspectives

Within teams, multidisciplinary or otherwise, members are united by a shared vision and

common goal; to produce the best outcome for the end user or client. This focus on “client-

centredness” (Wilson & Pirrie, 2000:1), instils a motivating driving force and positive team

work ethic to utilise each other’s skills to perform to the best of the team’s ability.

It is widely recognised that the major advantage of teamwork is to combine skills and

abilities of individuals in order to achieve higher performance in a synergistic way, beyond

what would be possible outside of a team (Ovretveit, 1995; Dyer, 2007). In most cases of

creative collaboration, individuals bring their own disciplinary knowledge and perspective,

which enhances the collective way of thinking, facilitates decision-making, and helps to

avoid problems by “seeing business realities from more than one point of view” (Bilton,

2007:28).

The individuals within the team don’t necessarily “complete each other but refine each

other” (Saffer, 2009), in a way that brings together diverse knowledge and idiosyncratic

creative competence that’s relevant for the task (Catlett & Halper, 2009; Alves et al, 2007).

Jansen and Goldsworthy (1995) and Nissani (1997) argue that a multidisciplinary approach

helps to bridge the gap that specialisation brings, and allows issues to be addressed beyond

the scope of a single discipline.

However, despite the concept of multidisciplinary teamworking being powerful, it has been

said that “the devil is in the details” (Salem-Baskin, 2010). Several factors have been noted

that can confound and limit the impact of successful teaming, such as “lack of time, staff

turnover, lack of administrative support, and distance” (Catlett & Halper, 1992:4). A

multidisciplinary team requires good communication and understanding between different

professions, and time and distance (particularly within large organisations) may present

communication challenges. However, since Catlett and Halper made comment on such

obstacles, it could be argued that advances in technology have eased some of the

aforementioned concerns, helping to overcome such physical and temporal boundaries.

There are claims that the impact of teamwork outside of an academic setting does not

deliver the benefits to the degree that would justify the time and costs involved, that the

“typical gains are small and that, overall, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of the

team must be described as modest, at best” (Alan & Hecht, 2004:444).

2.4 Team Structure and Dynamics

Several authors (Rawson, 1994; Goble, 1994; Carpenter, 1995) indicate that for a

multidisciplinary team to work together effectively there must be a “degree of reciprocal

influence and a readiness to embrace a new identity and role” to allow for dynamic

competency crossing (cited Wilson & Pirrie, 2000:6). This indicates that the personalities

that constitute the team hold a strong influence to the team’s overall effectiveness.

Models of professional development suggest that by introducing multidisciplinary

teamwork, businesses can stimulate creativity and encourage better use of talent.

The culture of a multidisciplinary team allows individuals to develop an awareness of each

other, providing the opportunity to appreciate the unique ways of working while “melding

them in new creative ways” to produce a “sum which is greater than the parts” (Ovretveit,

1995:42). By improving multi-directional communication and the interchange of roles

(Bilton, 2007; Ke, 2009), professionals can improve through self-reflection on their practice

(Schon, 1983).

However individuals working across a multifunctional system are met with the barrier of

discipline language, are expected to “share a capacity to cross boundaries and make

connections”, while “working together with great intensity and under high pressure” (Bilton,

2007:27). Successful multidisciplinary working therefore requires individuals to be flexible

and adaptable to other people and changing situations, self-aware, and empathetic (Bilton,

2007; Saffer, 2009).

Furthermore, traditional company structures, with their hierarchies and specific team role

allocations, impede the multiple capabilities and cross-discipline knowledge that individuals

can offer. A popular recruitment method used in recent years is assessment and screening

through sophisticated psychometric tests, with the aim to filter individuals by psychological

type into suitable roles. This ‘machine like’ approach leaves little room for cross-discipline

working, and mirrors a more traditional organisations hierarchical system, where

domination by “other professions may provoke strong reactions” within a team (Wilson &

Pirrie, 2000:19).

Management of these teams plays a vital role, providing the support and delivering strategic

direction in order to produce favourable results. As multidiscipline teams develop over time,

the period of distinctive individual perspectives must be carefully monitored and managed

to sustain a balance of identity. Maturity without effective control can lead to “over-

familiarisation and over-specialisation” (Bilton, 2007:29). Furthermore, management must

be self-aware of their position as they play a key role in the multidiscipline engagement,

helping individuals work together harmoniously across their discipline boundaries (Frucher

& Lewis, 2000; Buijs, 2007; Ke, 2009).

Group dynamics hold a strong influence on the success of multidisciplinary teams, with

“personal philosophies, work styles, attitudes about change and innovation, and approaches

to conflict and conflict resolution” all playing a major part (Catlett & Halper, 1992:4). It is

natural that conflict will arise with the blurring of discipline boundaries, while unwillingness

of some to co-operate and adapt to different roles to effect change is evidently a limiting

factor (Wilson & Pirrie, 2000).

A feeling of role retrenchment is another issue that can cause boundary solidification, with

the professionals seeking refuge in their own professional identity. The implementation of

new ways of working is essential to address any problems that arise when forming

multidisciplinary teams (Brown et al, 2000; Rogers, 2004).

An individual’s passion for their own discipline will inevitably cause friction, disruption and

sometimes arguments. Lack of a common language alone can lead to difficulties and

innovation is not necessarily a comfortable process. However, with good management,

these divisions are necessary in the pursuit of creative solutions that are well considered

(Bilton, 2007). Another positive outcome from this approach is ‘healthy’ internal

competition. Research has shown that multidisciplinary teams can “play important roles in

members’ competitiveness, provided they exhibit diversity, coherence and

complementarity” (Alves et al, 2007:32).

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1 Research Strategy

A review of literature has identified the potential advantages and disadvantages of using

multidisciplinary teams for sustainable creative business. The research now takes a

deductive approach to assess how the theory correlates with how businesses value and

utilise multidisciplinary teamwork in the working world.

By conducting semi-structured interviews, the complex reality of company structures and

practices can be better understood, providing the opportunity to compare creative

professional beliefs, opinions, experiences, narratives, and changing history.

According to Leedy & Ormrod (2005), a qualitative research method is used in the following

circumstances; (a) when there is rarely any information available about the topic (b) when

the researcher’s variables are unclear and unknown, and (c) when a relevant theory base is

missing in any sense. Therefore, qualitative research does not intend to “test” a hypothesis

but this method approach has a tendency to “describe, analyze, and interpret the

constructive aspects of the social world” (Mcleod, 2001:133).

Cassell and Symon (2004:21) also emphasise that a qualitative research method may be of

great use in “studying organisational and group identities in large organisations....where a

complex pattern of organisational, workgroup, professional and interpersonal loyalties

exist”, making it ideal for seeking the reality of multidisciplinary teamwork in practice.

3.2 Approach

Conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews in person provided a suitable methodology

for exploring the research question in more depth. The collection of ‘soft’ interpretive data

was gained through the use of open interviews with four creative professionals from

different businesses and varied company size to discover the understanding, opinions and

sentiment of the participants, and how they compared with each other and the literature.

Relevant, open questions were prepared for the semi-structured interview (Appendix A). In

line with interview protocol, these questions were used to produce a “guided conversation,”

and as much as possible, questions were non-directive, other than specifying the topic area,

and as prompts to ask for clarification or expansion of points that respondents made (Rubin

& Rubin, 1995:145,161-164).

The interviews opened with some simple yet salient introductory questions, postponing

more sensitive or intrusive questions related to team conflict and challenges, budget

spending and financial returns, and then concluding with an “inter-personal flourish” to

signal the end of the interview (Yin, 2011:139). Although this approach implies that the

findings of the research may be subjective, it’s argued that open-ended interviews, where

participants fully express their responses in as much detail as desired, can reduce researcher

bias, resulting in more objective research (Gall et al., 2003; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

3.3 Research participants

Creative professionals from four different UK based businesses were selected for the

research (Appendix C). Each participant had a different creative job role, and had worked in

companies of different sizes; from SMEs to international organisations. This provided the

opportunity to identify any differences between multidisciplinary team-working in smaller

companies, from that of larger organisations.

3.4 Benefits of interviews

Face-to face interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in time and place.

Due to this synchronous communication, there is the advantage of social cues such as voice,

intonation, and body language. This can provide a lot of extra information that can be added

to the verbal answer given by the interviewee on a particular question (Opdenakker, 2006).

Being semi-structured and conversational mirrors the “conversing that is a natural part of

everyone’s routine spoken conversations” (Yin, 2011:135). The use of open-ended questions

and probing gives participants the opportunity to respond in their own words, rather than

forcing them to choose from fixed responses, which helps to “depict a complex social world

from a participant’s perspective” (Yin, 2011:135). The intention is that the open-ended

questions will have the ability to evoke responses that are:

- meaningful and culturally salient to the participant

- unanticipated by the researcher

- rich and explanatory in nature

3.5 Limitations of interviews

Many of the drawbacks of face-to face interviewing lie with the interviewer. “Double

attention” (Wengraf, 2001:194) is required as “qualitative interviewing requires intense

listening...and a systematic effort to really hear and understand what people tell you”

(Rubin & Rubin, 1995:17).

Another challenge is for the interviewer to be “saying enough...to be... responsive but little

enough to preserve the autonomy of the participant’s words” (Seidman, 2006:96).

Furthermore, the interviewer must prevent inadvertently leading the participant through

visual behaviour. However, “this disadvantage can be diminished by using an interview

protocol and by the awareness of the interviewer of this effect” (Opdenakker, 2006).

Another inconvenience, although practical, is recording the interview and the time a

transcription of the recording consumes. Bryman (2001) suggests that one hour of interview

can take five to six hours to transcribe, a point to consider with multiple interviews.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

The research ensured ethical integrity by requiring all participants to provide written

consent to the interview and its recording (Appendix B). Pre-ceding the interview, it was

made clear that participants were able to withdraw from the interview at any time and did

not have to provide answers to questions they didn't feel comfortable with, or that may

bring their company's reputation into disrepute

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion

4.1: Introduction

The purpose of this research was to investigate the perceived value of multidisciplinary

teamwork for sustainable creative business, and identify any challenges that could arise

from the approach. The researcher had particular interest in how the interpretation of the

key terms can blur the understanding of topic and therefore the value it brings.

Conducting semi-structured interviews with creative professionals from organisations of

various size and structure helped, not only to closely examine the view of the participants,

but also to observe the correlation between the theories of multidisciplinary teamwork

identified in the literature review, and the reality of the approach in a real working

environment.

4.2: Understanding the Terms

Highlighted in the introduction and throughout the literature review were the different

interpretations of the term ‘multidisciplinary teamwork’. This confusion was also evident in

the research, with participants sometimes referring to specialists working in collaboration to

form a multidisciplinary team, whilst at other times referring to individuals with a

multidisciplinary skill set. The lack of general consensus on this term definition could hinder

the successful implementation and understanding of multidisciplinary working as a valued

concept.

“Multidisciplinary as a group of people in different specialisms, yes, but trying to be one

person that’s multidisciplinary and tries to do everything can be more difficult.

You can’t be good at everything and know about everything” (Interview 2).

Another ambiguous term discussed was ‘innovation’, with participants having varied views

on what ‘innovation’ means; is it something as open and seemingly straight forward as

“better more creative ideas” (Interview 1), or does it encompass more, can it be “a different

way of selling something or marketing something or...using a material in a way that it’s not

normally used”? (Interview 2). This clear disparity of definition is another issue to overcome

in the pursuit of shared understanding.

4.3: Stimulating Creativity and Innovation

The findings in the literature regarding creativity and the generation of new ideas,

suggested that it was the combination of different thinking styles that was most effective for

conceiving creative ideas. This was supported in the research, which found that “discussion

[and] bouncing ideas off each other... helps spark creativity” (Interview 2) and that differing

perspectives can unearth “a nugget of information in which to take inspiration” (Interview

3).

However all participants acknowledged the difficulty in measuring the success of creativity

and multidisciplinary teamwork: “It’s tricky... because it’s all collaboration and working

together” (Interview 1) and “no two projects are ever the same for comparison” (Interview

3). Success, the research found, could only be measured in terms of cost, profit, sales and

client feedback, supporting the view of Best (2006).

“If the project was delivered at the right cost, on time, and client is happy it is perceived as a

success” (Interview 4).

However, the literature failed to take into consideration that “it’s harder to gauge how

creativity, leading up to that process, has affected that profit”, and that “success isn’t always

just financial gain. You can succeed in the product and not sell that many of them”

(Interview 2).

Furthermore, the research found that creativity and innovation was sometimes hindered by

financial restrictions, something that is particularly poignant in today’s economic climate:

“Money can affect creativity… if there’s no budget or the time to nail it” (Interview 2) and

“It’s perceived as being less risky and quicker to do things the same way you have before”.

The irony in this is that investment in “successful innovation could potentially save cost and

time” (Interview 4). Budget restrictions, therefore, could be having a damaging effect to the

potential impact and perceived value that multidisciplinary teamwork can bring.

Overall the research supports existing literature, conveying that the use of multidisciplinary

teamwork for the creation of new value is beneficial and “in order to achieve the objectives,

it’s crucial to seek the advice and skills of the different disciplines” (Interview 3).

4.4: Complimentary Procedures and Perspectives

It was apparent from the research that multidisciplinary teams are both united and

motivated by the shared goal at the heart of the project (Interviews 1 and 2). Whether it be

a product or service, a team working towards achieving the same objectives enhances

collaboration, bringing the team members together with a joint focus on the client or end

user; thus supporting Wilson and Pirrie’s view on ‘client-centredness’ (2000:1).

However, despite ultimately wanting to achieve the same goal, it was evident that

multidisciplinary teams were frequently met with communication difficulties. Without being

prompted, every participant spoke of their experience of communication barriers between

disciplines, which would often result in conflict. One participant even said that on certain

projects, he had “known the flow of information between disciplines in a single organisation

be worse than between external organisations” (Interview 4), due to dangers of damaging

the business reputation if communication with an external company is poor.

It was stressed that a clearly defined brief at the beginning of the project is essential to

ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal. Participant 1 expressed that in his

experience, communication over e-mail had helped to ensure the brief was clearly identified

in writing, which would reduce any conflict if there were disagreements later about what

the brief was.

“You can always go back to an email and say ‘this is what we’d said we’d do or this is how

we said we’d work.’ I’m not going to work on a telephone conversation that maybe gets

misinterpreted and forgotten about” (Interview 1)

However, despite this attempt to resolve communication issues, the same participant also

expressed that team members were often reluctant to converse over email due to the time

taken to write down the brief when it has often already been discussed via telephone.

Similarly, the research also found that difficulties arose when a brief changed during a

project (Interviews 1 and 3). Different members of management interjecting with

completely different ideas is often “where a project completely falls apart [because] they’re

not seeing the bigger picture from the start” (Interview 1), stressing the need for “all

processes between the different disciplines [to] be ironed out and one single plan of action

[to] be agreed before work commences” (Interview 3). Not only does a change in brief this

cause disruption and confusion to the shared objectives, but it also causes the team to

become de-motivated:

“It can be really de-motivating when you go down one route, you put your heart and soul

into it and suddenly it changes” (Interview 1)

Although the luxury of different teams sharing their knowledge and opinions was desired, it

was acknowledged that, “from a practical point of view in a big business if you give

everyone a chance to give an opinion it will take much longer to make a decision” (Interview

2), and could throw the project off course.

The literature claimed that a potential danger of multidisciplinary working was that it

threatened to dilute professional identities. All participants recognised the importance of

individuals with specialist skills working within the team, although opinion was divided on

whether an individual specialising in multiple disciplines could be beneficial or harmful.

Whilst Participant 2 believed that it could cause team members to “become a jack of all

trade but a master of none” (Interview 2), Participant 1 was more favourable, noting the

practical and financial benefits it could bring. He suggested that by members of the team

possessing knowledge of different disciplines, it prevents the project coming to a standstill if

certain team members are temporarily absent.

Crucially, the research found that the current economic climate had a significant impact on

multidisciplinary working within organisations. Participant 1 stated that “in times of

recession its all about getting the most out of the staff you’ve got” and that by retaining

employees with skills covering multiple disciplines, the business “doesn’t have to employ as

many staff so they haven’t got as many overheads.”

“In terms of recession times, we’re not employing new staff but we are trying to sort of

tweak the staff we’ve got and train them in other things that we need, and that we think

we’re going to need for the future.” (Interview 1)

Graduates and new employees, the research found, are now expected to know more than

just their specialist subject:

“If we got a new graphic designer we would expect them to do a lot of web stuff and I think

most people who are graduating now...I would expect to come in with more than one skill,

and if they’re not, they’re probably not teaching them the right stuff” (Interview 1)

This view supports the need for multidisciplinary teamwork to be taught by education

providers, something that was identified in the introduction of the research. This, it appears,

would help graduates to be more ‘job-ready’ in the current economic climate.

Interestingly, Participant 4 suggested that multidisciplinary teamwork can be counter-

intuitive, with team members not “considering things outside or on the fringes of their

discipline as there are people on hand to provide answers to any queries that arise”

(Interview 4).

Furthermore, the research found a difference in opinion regarding the size of the

organisation that multidisciplinary working was most suited to. Whilst Participant 3

suggested that the approach would work better in medium sized companies “who don’t

have the resources or budget to have these different disciplines in house” (Interview 3),

Participant 1 believed that it suited a larger organisation that has more strands, as a smaller

organisation should specialise in one area.

Conversely, Participant 4 believed that the size of the organisation was not a factor, rather it

was “the quality of the staff involved and the way the organisation is managed” (Interview

4) that influenced the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teamwork. This highlights some of

the complex factors and logistical barriers involved with introducing ‘multidisciplinary

teamwork’ as an added value concept.

4.5: Team Structure and Dynamics

In both the literature and primary research, team structures and dynamics were recognised

as having a critical influence on the success of a multidisciplinary team. The attitudes,

commitment and personalities of the team members were appreciated as playing a

fundamental role in providing a solid platform for cross-disciplinary learning, potentially

“boosting professional identity” (Interview 3).

However, although “the experience of learning new things and having different people all

working together to achieve certain objectives” (Interview 2) is an ideal, “difference in style

or ego” (Interview 2) could be extremely detrimental, de-motivating individuals and causing

confusion due to a “lack of understanding and cohesion between the different parties”. It

was noted that there was a certain reliance on team members being “comfortable with each

other’s constructive criticism” (Interview 3), for multidisciplinary teams to work in harmony.

The research told that “ambiguity in roles and responsibilities is the biggest obstacle to

successful teamwork collaboration” (Interview 4), and that “working in multidisciplinary

teams can lead to a blame culture because it’s easier to pass the buck” (Interview 1).

Although this could be based on a personal experience rather than common practice, it does

support the views of Brown et al, who state that role retrenchment can cause problems to

arise (2000).

“There is always conflict between individuals in teams and as long it is managed to not be

detrimental to the performance of the team it is not necessarily a bad thing. Competition

and rivalry can spur individuals to greater performance levels, however I would imagine a

fully harmonious team would generally be preferable”

(Interview 4).

The research therefore supports the view of Alves et al (2007) that multidisciplinary

teamwork can spark healthy competition which leads to increased performance. Critically, it

also highlights both the importance of management for resolving team conflicts (supported

by Bilton, 2007), and also the need for clearly defined team roles to ensure that individuals

don’t abdicate responsibilities. However, expressing the need for organisations to “provide

clear accountability and a mechanism for resolving issues” (Interview 4), conflicts with the

literature that advocates a “flatter” structure with less hierarchy and “functional divisions”

(Henry & Mayle, 2002:32). This presents a significant challenge in terms of the practicalities

of multidisciplinary teamwork.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

5.1: Summary

This study set out to assess the value of multidisciplinary teamwork for sustainable creative

business by investigating the opinions of creative professionals, and comparing their

experiences against existing theory. To achieve this, the research and literature review were

both conducted with the set aims and objectives below, from which conclusions can be

made:

The benefits of using a multidisciplinary approach for sustaining creative business;

The challenges that surround a successful multidiscipline team;

How existing multidisciplinary theory correlates with current working practise in

creative business;

How creative professionals envisage the future climate for multidisciplinary teams.

The findings from the primary research complimented the literature by identifying a range

of benefits of multidisciplinary working; from helping individuals to share knowledge and

best practice, to stimulating fresh ideas and creativity. Furthermore, the research expressed

how, in the current economic climate, teams comprising of individuals who possess multi-

disciplinary skills, can help to save on cost. By instilling such creativity, maximising the skill

set of the team, and avoiding problems by sharing specialist knowledge, multidisciplinary

teams can help businesses to be innovative, and therefore both competitive and

sustainable.

However, the research also identified several challenges that inhibit a successful

multidiscipline team. Communication difficulties, budget restrictions, the challenge of

measuring success, and team conflict, were all highlighted as problems that limited the

value to multi-disciplinary team work. While many of these challenges were mentioned in

the literature, the research emphasised how serious these limitations are in restricting

project progress. Although these challenges are similar to that of general collaboration

within a company, the findings suggest that they become more complex when faced with

cross-discipline communication issues, differing approaches to integration and

organisational willingness to change. These barriers to success have noticeable impact on

the perceived value that a multidisciplinary team can offer, and the role it could have in the

future.

In terms of envisaging the future climate for multidisciplinary teams, the research found

that creative professionals believe that there would always be a need for specialists.

However, it was generally agreed that there is increasing demand for individuals to possess

knowledge that exceed their specialist knowledge, in order to have a greater awareness and

appreciation for other disciplines, facilitating effective multidisciplinary team-working.

5.2: Limitations

The researcher acknowledges that the study was met with certain limitations. Firstly, with

existing theory around multidisciplinary working being largely restricted to medical practice

and educational reform, it was difficult to directly correlate the theory with current working

practice in creative business. However, there was an abundance of literature regarding

teamwork in general and benefits of cross-discipline learning, which were used to provide

comparison.

The research revealed that the term ‘multidisciplinary’ was ambiguous for many, with some

viewing it as specialists in different disciplines working together, and others understanding it

as groups of individuals each possessing skills that cover multiple disciplines. Although this

was a valuable finding in itself, these different interpretations of the key terms may have

distorted the answers of the participants.

With regards to the research strategy, the researcher acknowledges that a larger research

sample would have provided a more comprehensive representation, and that a mixed

method approach could also have been employed to provide some triangulation and

strengthen the overall findings. Although valuable, the subjective responses received in this

study may have been biased and therefore not entirely representative.

5.3: Further research

The researcher suggests that the subject area would benefit from further research into the

following areas:

Defining multidisciplinary teamwork: A united industry understanding of the term is crucial

in order to gauge the value of multidisciplinary teamwork

Integration of multidisciplinary teamwork: With the interest in multidisciplinary working

growing it’s important to consider how new ways of working become integrated within

typical industry environments.

Reference List

Allen, N.J & Hecht, T.D., (2004). The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 439-461.

Alves et al., (2007). Creativity and Innovation through Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral Cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, (1), pp. 27-34.

Barr, H. et al., (1999). Evaluating Interprofessional Education: two systematic reviews for health and social care. British Educational Research journal. 25, (4), pp.533-544.

Best, K., (2006). Design Management: Managing Design Strategy, Process and Implementation. Lausanne: AVA Publishing SA.

Berger, G., (1972). Opinions and Facts. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Eds.). Interdisciplinarity, pp. 21-74. Nice, France: OECD.

Bilton, C., (2007). Management and Creativity: From Creative Industries to Creative Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Brown, B. et al., (2000). Blurred roles and permeable boundaries: the experience of multidisciplinary working in community mental health. Health and Social Care in the Community. 8 (6), pp. 425–435.

Bruce, A. et al., (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework Programme. Futures, 36, pp.457-470.

Bryman, A., (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buijs, J. (2007) Innovation Leaders Should be Controlled Schizophrenics. Creativity and Innovation Management 16 (20): 203-210.

Cassell, C. & Symon, G., (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage Publications.

Catlett, C., & Halper, A., (1992). Team approaches: working together to improve quality. In C. Frattalie, ed. 1992. Quality Improvement Digest. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Cox, G., (2005). The Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s Strengths. London: HM Treasury.

Chesbrough, H., (2011). Open Services: Open Innovation in a Service Economy. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.DEA / FBE, (2008). Thinking across disciplines - interdisciplinarity in research and education [pdf] Available at: http://fuhu.dk/filer/FBE/Publikationer/thinking_across.pdf [Accessed August 2012].

Design Management Institute., (2012). Team Dynamics: Resourcing for success. Upcoming seminar by Dieter Reuther, Operations Consultant, Cast Collective. Sabrina Jetton, Design Consultant, Cast Collective October 22-23, 2012, New York, USA.

Dyer et al., (2007). Teambuilding: Proven Strategies for Improving Team Performance. 4th ed. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

Economist, The. (2002). Technology Quarterly: Q3 2002. Thanksgiving for Innovation. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/1324709 [Accessed August 2012].

Fantoni, G., et al., (2006). Problem classes and collaborative methods: a new approach to product innovation [pdf]. Available at: http://www.cetim.org/projects/408/ICE%202006/Innovation%20Management/p35.5-89%20poster.pdf [Accessed August 2012].

Fay, D. et al., (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: a multi-sample study of team innovation in healthcare, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, pp.553-567.

Fleissig et al., (2006). Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?Lancet Oncol, 7, pp. 935-943.

Frucher, A and Lewis, S., (2000). Mentoring and Reverse Mentoring in P5BL. The 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on PBL. Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore, Problem-Based Learning.Hargrove, R., (1998). Mastering the art of creative collaboration. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Henry, J and Mayle, D., (2002). Managing Innovation and Change. London: Sage.

Horlick-Jones, T and Sime, J., (2004). Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36 (4), pp. 441-457.

Ke, C., (2009). Exploring Multidisciplinary Teamwork Design Process for Cross-disciplinary Learning. Institute of creative industry design, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.

Kelly, T. and Littman, J., (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for beating the devil’s advocate & driving creativity throughout your organisation. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Klein, J. T., (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Klein, J. T., (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Kirton, M.J., (1984). Adapters and Innovators- Why New Initiatives Get Blocked. In J. Henry, ed. 2006. Creative Management and Development. London: Sage, pp.109-119.

Kockelmans, J. J., (1979). Why Interdisciplinarity? In J. J. Kockelmans, (ed.). lnterdisciplinarity and Higher Education. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 123-160.

Leathard, A., (1994). Going Inter-Professional. Working Together for Heath and Welfare. London: Routledge.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E., (2005). Practical Research Planning and Design (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Mayville, W. V., (1978). lnterdisciplinarity: The Mutable Paradigm. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

McEwen, L., et al., (2009). Students’ experiences of interdisciplinary learning, Higher Education Academy Report.

McLeod, J., (2001). Qualitative Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage Publications.

Mercier, E. et al., (2006). Collaborating to learn, learning to collaborate: finding the balance in a cross-disciplinary design course. In Proceedings of the 7th International conference on Learning Sciences. Bloomington, Indiana, International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp. 467-473.

National Archives (2010). HM Treasury: The Cox Review of Creativity in Business. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/coxreview_index.htm [Accessed August 2012]

Opdenakker, R., (2006). Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7, (4), p 11.

Ovretveit, J., (1995). Team Decision-making. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 9, (1), pp. 41-51.

Petts, J. et al., (2006). Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39, pp. 593-601.

Poulton, B.C and West, M.A., (1993). Effective multidisciplinary teamwork in primary health care, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, pp. 918-925.

Rogers, T., (2004). Managing in the interprofessional environment: a theory of action perspective. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18 (3), pp. 239-249.

Ruben, H.J., and Ruben, I.S., (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saffer, D., (2009). Product Design 2.0 and the Genesis of Kicker Studio. Available at: http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/january-february-2009/featureproduct-design-2.0-and-the-genesis-of-kicker-studio [Accessed August 2012].

Seidman, I., (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (3rd Ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.

Stember, M., (1991). Advancing the Social Sciences through the Interdisciplinary Enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28, pp. 1-14.

Tharenou, P., (2007). Management research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wengraf, T., (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.

Wickson, F. et al., (2006). Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38, pp.1046-1059.

Wilson, V. and Pirrie, A., (2000). Multidisciplinary Teamworking: Beyond the Barriers? A Review of the Issues. Edinburgh: SCRE.

Wilson, V. and Pirrie, A., (2000b). Multidisciplinary Teamworking: Indicators of Good Practice. Edinburgh: SCRE.

Yin, R.K., (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K., (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guildford Press.