China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Toward Portable Ideas
Published in Margrethe H. Olson, Technological Support for Work Group Collaboration, 2020
Whether and when these changes in conversations are beneficial is still to be determined. For example, accelerating the pace of a meeting as in the brainstorming phase may give participants less time to think. On the other hand, freedom from serial turn-taking may alleviate some of the problems of production blocking (due to the limitation that only one group member can talk at a time) reported by other studies of brainstorming in more conventional media (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). In some cases, the context surrounding the generation of an item may be lost. Important effects also happen at the transitions between meeting processes. Among the transitions are the formation and dissolution of subgroups, the shifting of participants from one topical focus to another, and the transitions of the conversational patterns of the whole group as it shifts from having a single focus of activity to having multiple conversations and subgroups and then back again. However, our purpose now is to begin to understand some of the differences, not to evaluate them.
Exploring How Workspace Awareness Cues Affect Distributed Meeting Outcome
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Fangyu Yu, Peng Zhang, Xianghua Ding, Tun Lu, Ning Gu
Globalization, telecommuting, and crisis cases (e.g., the COVID-19 outbreak) have made it essential for geographically dispersed teams to share and exchange knowledge using online whiteboards or similar digital tools (Gumienny et al., 2013; Zillner et al., 2014). Compared with traditional tools, the online whiteboard supports more interactive functions, meanwhile maintaining the flexibility and fluidity of physical whiteboards (Cherubini et al., 2007). It allows virtual teams to share knowledge, exchange information, or depict ideas simultaneously, which overcomes such shortcomings as “production blocking” in oral conversations (Ivanov & Zelchenko, 2019). In practice, the online whiteboard has been proved its value in informal collaboration, team decision, and awareness (Mangano et al., 2014).
Better together? Investigating new control room configurations and reduced crew size in submarine command and control
Published in Ergonomics, 2020
Neville A. Stanton, Aaron P. J. Roberts
It has been proposed that a reduction in output and performance in team environments is due to production blocking (Stanton et al. 2003). This is an extension of social loafing theory, which refers to instances where individuals working in a group exert less effort than when working alone (Simms and Nichols 2014; Stanton et al. 2002). It could be argued that the design of team structures and communication channels can unwittingly create bottlenecks in team processes, whereby individual team members may be blocked from contributing to the team processes. This may be thought of as a form of engineered social loafing (Roberts et al. 2019). This phenomenon increases in technology-supported and location distributed teams, with the potential for overall productivity loss (Simms and Nichols 2014; Suleiman and Watson 2008). Production blocking occurs when verbal communication is limited (i.e. only one person can talk at a given time), leading to inadvertent suppression of ideas, distraction and/or forgetfulness, contributing to reductions in overall productivity. An example of this in a submarine control room is that all SoPs (of which there can be up to 6 in a command team) are required to share information via one individual – the sonar controller (Roberts, Stanton, and Fay 2017). This also has the potential to exceed the cognitive capacities of the operator acting as an information broker (Roberts and Cole 2018). A further example of this is the requirement of the OOW to provide supervisory support across two different rooms within the command space, potentially resulting in reduced motivation from neglected operators depending upon operation type. However, a key question is whether teams of individuals overtly reduce output or whether the engineering of the sociotechnical system itself restricts output (Stanton et al. 2003). The appearance of bottlenecks in the social network analysis of command teams suggests that the physical design of the system plays a critical role in reducing productivity (Roberts, Stanton, and Fay 2017).
Comparing human and cognitive assistant facilitated brainstorming sessions
Published in Journal of Engineering Design, 2022
Torsten Maier, Nicolas F. Soria Zurita, Elizabeth Starkey, Daniel Spillane, Christopher McComb, Jessica Menold
Unfortunately, despite the numerous ideation methods that have been developed, many teams still work in traditional groups through brainstorming (Dam and Teo 2020). Brainstorming is subject to a variety of negative social and individual factors, such as (but not limited to): Evaluation apprehension occurs when individuals are resistant to sharing ideas due to the concern of being negatively judged. It negatively impairs interacting groups and nominal groups that believe their work will be judged (Diehl and Stroebe 1987).Social anxiety stems from a fear of social situations and groups with higher social anxiety have been found to produce fewer ideas than groups with lower social anxiety (Camacho and Paulus 1995).Social benchmarking occurs when individuals working in groups match their performance to each other (Brown and Paulus 1996).Social loafing occurs when individuals provide less effort in a group setting than as an individual (Siemon, Eckardt, and Robra-Bissantz 2015; Karau and Williams 1993).Design fixation occurs when individuals are reluctant to consider alternative concepts (Smith, Ward, and Schumacher 1993).Production blocking is the concept that individuals have a limited attentional capacity to both listen to others and mentally process their own concepts (Hinsz, Vollrath, and Tindale 1997); thus, individuals must wait until their production block (i.e. their turn to speak) until they can work through their own concepts. It has been found to lead to productivity loss (Diehl and Stroebe 1987).