Teambuilders, Inc.


Forum American Institute of Architects Committee on Design Observations on Collaborations Wendy Feuer, Ralph Steinglass [ Collaboration: 1) The act of performing work or labor together 2) cooperate with the enemy ] What would possess about fifty architects from around the country, of varying ages and from different types of firms, to hole up for an entire spring day in a windowless room at the University of Cincinnati architecture school? A design challenge, of course. But more than that was involved, it was also a challenge of collaborating with people whose ideas and style may differ greatly from one's own. Why test the idea of collaborations? Architects have always worked with other disciplines but, as more complicated projects have come along requiring expertise from different disciplines, and new voices are demanding to be heard, the process of design itself has changed. The American Institute of Architects Committee on Design used its recent visit to Cincinnati to organize a charette that generated ideas for the city's Downtown Gateway program -- which celebrates civic history, provides visitor orientation and helps create a unique urban identity. Participants would be asked to do this under an interesting set of conditions that tested different ideas for working collaboratively. They worked as part of assigned teams and used a schedule which segmented the day into modules based on milestones. With the pressure of time, it was felt that milestones would help organize the day towards a final product. Further, the effort would take place under the watchful eyes of observers. The goal was to pull people out of their traditional way of working and thinking to provide them with a better understanding of how one method of working collaboratively works. Team Formation. At registration, participants were given a cartoon illustrating a round table at which various characters were seated. Each character had a role: leader, devil's advocate, imagineer, philosopher, pragmatist, story teller, seconder, and advocate for the common man. Participants were asked to check the role(s) they felt most suited their professional persona. The charette planning team took this information and created ten teams of five people, based not only on their experience and skills, but also on personality characteristics that might influence the roles people assume in a group…hoping for a reasonable balance or personalities on each team. In addition, each team included an observer who would watch the interactions and convene two discussions on the process (not the product), reporting on what he or she observed and urging team members to discuss what they were experiencing. The planning team assigned students from the University of Cincinnati and Ball State University to play this role; they could be relied on to be neutral, objective and active listeners, while being least intrusive. The Kick-off. The morning of the charette began with remarks from the planning team. This included a brief overview of the relationship between art and architecture, a review of different ways in which artists and architects have collaborated on recent projects, a description of a program in which architects, students and communities collaborated on socially relevant projects, and a discussion of the darker side of team work -- the resistance and competition between team members that make working together a challenge. The planning team then reviewed the charette schedule, and describing the role of the student observers and presented guidelines to help focus participants on the tasks, improve communications, and encourage collaborative design. Each team was asked to assign functional roles to its members, scribe (to record the interests, ideas and goals), timekeeper (to help track and monitor the scheduled work intervals) and spokesperson (to make the final presentation). Finally, a representative from the city manager's office described the Gateway program and presented the design challenge of creating a major entrance to the city from a six-lane highway with an intersecting bridge that connects Ohio and Kentucky. Beginning the Work. Teams varied in how they responded to the guidelines. In most cases, introductions were made, but only a few groups actually assigned the roles that had been identified. Leadership was taken up informally in some cases, not at all in others. A few groups designated a leadership position and tried to follow the consensus-building approach described during the opening remarks. Initial team brainstorming covered a wide range of issues, from concern about local conditions to broader urban concerns. Most teams took the trouble to develop goals, though some required prodding from facilitators to do so. One team rebelled and refused to follow any of the suggestions. Teams struggled with the tension of having to deal with multiple egos, which resulted in some flare-ups, some heated exchanges and even withdrawal those who preferred to avoid conflict. Student observers noted a range of behaviors during the initial brainstorming period: not listening to each others ideas controlling the outcome by keeping secret notes taking physical possession of the drawings using drawing instruments to vehemently emphasize critical points splitting off into sub-groups Observations: First Break Some teams had to be reminded, or even coaxed, to stop work at the first scheduled break at which the student observers were to provide feedback on the process. Most of the teams listened to what their observer had to say for a few moments, but a few resisted even that and continued to work. It became apparent that it would be difficult for the observer to stay in role because of the pressure to get involved in the activity, or even act as a mediator. The planning team decided to meet with the observers to learn in more detail about how the teams were working, provide them with support in carrying out their roles and get feedback on their experience. This generated an unanticipated dynamic among planning team members, student observers and participants; participants became curious about what the students and planning team were saying. Following are verbal sketches of the first part of the charette as reported by the observers: no organization or delegating of tasks no leader emerged, until the last five minutes before the process break spent a half hour on introductions; several participants showed signs of being authoritative; student acting as facilitator started drawing first thing, then realized they had no leadership or direction there were no introductions, only the woman on the team reached out to everyone; the mission statement was ignored; suddenly the team realized that one member was from Cincinnati putting up the drawing helped focus their energy there was no leader, and the scribe took notes for himself, a secret scribe went around the table with introductions, picked roles, including assigning formal leader; two others played leadership roles as well, despite this, there were no (overt) clashes The Final Stretch: As the day wore on, the atmosphere changed from tentative collaborative efforts to a more productive presentation mode. Roles were delegated to individuals, or small groups. Someone took advantage of the library to research Cincinnati's history, some groups began to work together testing ideas; others began to work seriously on drawings in groups or in pairs.The discussions around pin-ups and other presentation materials was animated. Sometimes one person took on a leadership role, in other groups the leadership was more fluid, shifting back and forth, depending on the issue being discussed. It was decision-making time. There was pushing and pulling, circling around, spinning off, breaking up, walking away. Teams were struggling to find common ground, but running out of time. By 3 p.m., nearly all the teams were moving towards a presentation mode. All except one team appeared to be working collaboratively. This team, unable to resolve differences, had split and different people eventually presented three schemes without a common theme. As 4 p.m. approached, the scheduled time for the second observation break, teams were working feverishly. Resistance to breaking was high. The planning team walked from table to table reminding teams to stop and listen for a few minutes. Half the groups finally did pause and listen to their observers' feedback, they wanted to know "how we're doing." Presentations: At 6 p.m. teams set up their presentations in the building's main atrium space. Cincinnati's Economic Development Director, the representative from the City Manager's office, and a local architect who was also a professor at the architecture school, were present to listen and respond. Each team was asked to make three points about its proposals. It was difficult to keep the presenters to three points, but the groups became self-regulating with participants humorously calling out when presentations went on too long. The ideas and recommendations ranged from the imaginatively pragmatic (such as detailing the lighting and street furniture and respecting most of the planning criteria) to bolder schemes that partially or totally ignored such criteria, focusing instead on concepts that challenged the city to come up with bigger ideas that addressed the need to link the downtown with the river in substance, not just symbolic form. Lessons Learned: The workshop was not intended as a scientific test. It was meant to allow participants to observe themselves, as well as be observed, in a structured process. The following was culled from the planning team and student observers' discussions and notes: A team needs people not only different disciplines, but also with different personalities, to work collaboratively. It is not surprising that the team with four imagineers had the most difficulty developing a common scheme. At times flexibility in roles, such as changing leaders at different stages of design development, can be beneficial to the creative process. Imposing a rigid schedule may have had a negative effect, causing teams to truncate the conceptual phase of the design and make decisions prematurely. Requiring teams to come up with a mission statement helped them to focus more effectively on a common approach. Successful collaboration is not something that necessarily happens by accident. Those teams that subsumed the product to the process… that is, they consciously followed the guidelines for effective communication ( most importantly, active listening ) … came up with a product that was equal if not superior to those groups that acted more independently. Collaboration may not be for everyone and may not be the right process in all situations. The fear that designing by committee results in watered down solutions is very real. However, as we saw in Cincinnati, getting the right group together, and working with set guidelines, can be invigorating and produce a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is impossible to know if any of the ideas that came out of the charette will be adopted by the City of Cincinnati. This, perhaps, is less important than the lessons that participants may have learned and brought back to their practice, influencing not only who participates in the design process but also how the work is actually done. Wendy Feuer is a New York City-based consultant who manages public art, urban design and planning projects. Ralph Steinglass, FAIA, is founder and principal of Teambuilders, Inc., an organizational development firm in New York City.

Forum
American Institute of Architects Committee on Design
Observations on Collaborations
Wendy Feuer, Ralph Steinglass

[ Collaboration: 1) The act of performing work or labor together 2) cooperate with the enemy ]

What would possess about fifty architects from around the country, of varying ages and from different types of firms, to hole up for an entire spring day in a windowless room at the University of Cincinnati architecture school? A design challenge, of course. But more than that was involved, it was also a challenge of collaborating with people whose ideas and style may differ greatly from one's own. Why test the idea of collaborations? Architects have always worked with other disciplines but, as more complicated projects have come along requiring expertise from different disciplines, and new voices are demanding to be heard, the process of design itself has changed.

The American Institute of Architects Committee on Design used its recent visit to Cincinnati to organize a charette that generated ideas for the city's Downtown Gateway program -- which celebrates civic history, provides visitor orientation and helps create a unique urban identity. Participants would be asked to do this under an interesting set of conditions that tested different ideas for working collaboratively. They worked as part of assigned teams and used a schedule which segmented the day into modules based on milestones. With the pressure of time, it was felt that milestones would help organize the day towards a final product. Further, the effort would take place under the watchful eyes of observers. The goal was to pull people out of their traditional way of working and thinking to provide them with a better understanding of how one method of working collaboratively works.

Team Formation.

At registration, participants were given a cartoon illustrating a round table at which various characters were seated. Each character had a role: leader, devil's advocate, imagineer, philosopher, pragmatist, story teller, seconder, and advocate for the common man. Participants were asked to check the role(s) they felt most suited their professional persona. The charette planning team took this information and created ten teams of five people, based not only on their experience and skills, but also on personality characteristics that might influence the roles people assume in a group…hoping for a reasonable balance or personalities on each team. In addition, each team included an observer who would watch the interactions and convene two discussions on the process (not the product), reporting on what he or she observed and urging team members to discuss what they were experiencing. The planning team assigned students from the University of Cincinnati and Ball State University to play this role; they could be relied on to be neutral, objective and active listeners, while being least intrusive.

The Kick-off.

The morning of the charette began with remarks from the planning team. This included a brief overview of the relationship between art and architecture, a review of different ways in which artists and architects have collaborated on recent projects, a description of a program in which architects, students and communities collaborated on socially relevant projects, and a discussion of the darker side of team work -- the resistance and competition between team members that make working together a challenge.

The planning team then reviewed the charette schedule, and describing the role of the student observers and presented guidelines to help focus participants on the tasks, improve communications, and encourage collaborative design. Each team was asked to assign functional roles to its members, scribe (to record the interests, ideas and goals), timekeeper (to help track and monitor the scheduled work intervals) and spokesperson (to make the final presentation). Finally, a representative from the city manager's office described the Gateway program and presented the design challenge of creating a major entrance to the city from a six-lane highway with an intersecting bridge that connects Ohio and Kentucky.

Beginning the Work.

Teams varied in how they responded to the guidelines. In most cases, introductions were made, but only a few groups actually assigned the roles that had been identified. Leadership was taken up informally in some cases, not at all in others. A few groups designated a leadership position and tried to follow the consensus-building approach described during the opening remarks. Initial team brainstorming covered a wide range of issues, from concern about local conditions to broader urban concerns. Most teams took the trouble to develop goals, though some required prodding from facilitators to do so. One team rebelled and refused to follow any of the suggestions. Teams struggled with the tension of having to deal with multiple egos, which resulted in some flare-ups, some heated exchanges and even withdrawal those who preferred to avoid conflict. Student observers noted a range of behaviors during the initial brainstorming period:

not listening to each others ideas
controlling the outcome by keeping secret notes
taking physical possession of the drawings
using drawing instruments to vehemently emphasize critical points
splitting off into sub-groups

Observations: First Break

Some teams had to be reminded, or even coaxed, to stop work at the first scheduled break at which the student observers were to provide feedback on the process. Most of the teams listened to what their observer had to say for a few moments, but a few resisted even that and continued to work. It became apparent that it would be difficult for the observer to stay in role because of the pressure to get involved in the activity, or even act as a mediator. The planning team decided to meet with the observers to learn in more detail about how the teams were working, provide them with support in carrying out their roles and get feedback on their experience. This generated an unanticipated dynamic among planning team members, student observers and participants; participants became curious about what the students and planning team were saying. Following are verbal sketches of the first part of the charette as reported by the observers:

no organization or delegating of tasks
no leader emerged, until the last five minutes before the process break
spent a half hour on introductions; several participants showed signs of being authoritative; student acting as facilitator
started drawing first thing, then realized they had no leadership or direction
there were no introductions, only the woman on the team reached out to everyone;
the mission statement was ignored; suddenly the team realized that one member was from Cincinnati
putting up the drawing helped focus their energy
there was no leader, and the scribe took notes for himself, a secret scribe
went around the table with introductions, picked roles, including assigning formal leader; two others played leadership roles as well, despite this, there were no (overt) clashes

The Final Stretch:

As the day wore on, the atmosphere changed from tentative collaborative efforts to a more productive presentation mode. Roles were delegated to individuals, or small groups. Someone took advantage of the library to research Cincinnati's history, some groups began to work together testing ideas; others began to work seriously on drawings in groups or in pairs.The discussions around pin-ups and other presentation materials was animated. Sometimes one person took on a leadership role, in other groups the leadership was more fluid, shifting back and forth, depending on the issue being discussed. It was decision-making time. There was pushing and pulling, circling around, spinning off, breaking up, walking away. Teams were struggling to find common ground, but running out of time. By 3 p.m., nearly all the teams were moving towards a presentation mode. All except one team appeared to be working collaboratively. This team, unable to resolve differences, had split and different people eventually presented three schemes without a common theme.

As 4 p.m. approached, the scheduled time for the second observation break, teams were working feverishly. Resistance to breaking was high. The planning team walked from table to table reminding teams to stop and listen for a few minutes. Half the groups finally did pause and listen to their observers' feedback, they wanted to know "how we're doing."

Presentations:

At 6 p.m. teams set up their presentations in the building's main atrium space. Cincinnati's Economic Development Director, the representative from the City Manager's office, and a local architect who was also a professor at the architecture school, were present to listen and respond. Each team was asked to make three points about its proposals. It was difficult to keep the presenters to three points, but the groups became self-regulating with participants humorously calling out when presentations went on too long. The ideas and recommendations ranged from the imaginatively pragmatic (such as detailing the lighting and street furniture and respecting most of the planning criteria) to bolder schemes that partially or totally ignored such criteria, focusing instead on concepts that challenged the city to come up with bigger ideas that addressed the need to link the downtown with the river in substance, not just symbolic form.

Lessons Learned:

The workshop was not intended as a scientific test. It was meant to allow participants to observe themselves, as well as be observed, in a structured process. The following was culled from the planning team and student observers' discussions and notes:

A team needs people not only different disciplines, but also with different personalities, to work collaboratively. It is not surprising that the team with four imagineers had the most difficulty developing a common scheme.
At times flexibility in roles, such as changing leaders at different stages of design development, can be beneficial to the creative process.
Imposing a rigid schedule may have had a negative effect, causing teams to truncate the conceptual phase of the design and make decisions prematurely.
Requiring teams to come up with a mission statement helped them to focus more effectively on a common approach.
Successful collaboration is not something that necessarily happens by accident. Those teams that subsumed the product to the process… that is, they consciously followed the guidelines for effective communication ( most importantly, active listening ) … came up with a product that was equal if not superior to those groups that acted more independently.

Collaboration may not be for everyone and may not be the right process in all situations. The fear that designing by committee results in watered down solutions is very real. However, as we saw in Cincinnati, getting the right group together, and working with set guidelines, can be invigorating and produce a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is impossible to know if any of the ideas that came out of the charette will be adopted by the City of Cincinnati. This, perhaps, is less important than the lessons that participants may have learned and brought back to their practice, influencing not only who participates in the design process but also how the work is actually done.

Wendy Feuer is a New York City-based consultant who manages public art, urban design and planning projects.

Ralph Steinglass, FAIA, is founder and principal of Teambuilders, Inc., an organizational development firm in New York City.