Joshtait finalisedcollab n8289221 by Josh Tait

PROJECT 3

REPORT ARTEFACT

SITE

WOODFORDIA

NAME

JOSHUA TAIT

CONT ENTS CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS

THE KEY DEFINITIONS THAT MAKE UP MY INITIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT, AS WELL AS TASK AND GROUP INTRODUCTION

AN ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP COLLABORATION PRINCIPLES, SUCCESSES, FAILURES, COMMUNICATIONS, CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS ETC.

DESIGN REVIEW REFLECTIONS REFERENCES

THE EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF GROUP FUNCTION AND COMPLETION OF THE OVERALL WOODFORDIA PROPOSAL

STUDY VS. INDUSTRY, AND HOW I WILL TAKE THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED WITHIN THIS SUBJECT INTO THE FUTURE

REFERENCE LIST OF NOTABLE RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATION OF ALL TEXTS, DOCUMENTS, AND RESOURCES USED WITHIN THE TASK.

INTRODUCTION

TEAM DYNAMICS T

HE MOTIVATING AND DRIVING FORCES THAT PROPEL A TEAM TOWARD

ITS GOAL OR MISSION

“A GROUP OF TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN SOME

TEAM JOINT ACTION WITH A SPECIFIC MISSION OR GOAL

TEAMWORK

COLLABORATION .noun

.noun

the action of working together to produce something.

the combined action of a group, especially when effective and efficient.

TEAM .noun

two or more people working together to achieve a common goal

Within this unit, a task was given in relation to a particular locale; to form an idea, and nurture it into a design intervention within the topic site, collectively and collaboratively as a group. Before one delves into discussing locale, ideas and response, it becomes necessary to conclude exactly, in simple terms and expressions, exactly what successful collaboration is. To begin communicating my understanding of design and collaboration as a unit - it becomes necessary to discern what I believe are the true definitions associated and concerned with the afore mentioned subjects. To collaborate you need a team, and to be a team, you need to have a common goal, with the understanding, knowledge and desire to achieve the same results. This statement was reached following the investigation into the definitions of the following: team, and team dynamics, as seen on the previous page kindly provided to us by Eckes, before being cross analysed with the definitions shown above - provided by the Oxford English Dictionary. The following was concluded: in order to collaborate successfully one needs a team; with a common goal and drive to achieve our design task to the utmost of our abilities. Once the team is formed, through effective and efficient teamwork, we will communicate our idea, and design response

THE TASK:

WOODFORDIA STUDIOS The core objective of this unit was to develop one’s skills in the field collaborative practive within the topics of design, research and presentation. The Woodford Folk Festival - an annual music festival concerned with bringing together a range of different demographics, music genres, nationalities and beliefs. They need our help. At present performers, staff and visitors will reside in dilapidated huts, and rusty caravans on site for the duration of their stay. Our task as a team is to replace these structures with sustainable and cheap studio cabins. There is a wish to see innovative concepts, creative use of space, appropriate material selection, sensitivity to context and suitable construction techniques. Upon receiving our task with the chosen topic of Woodfordia, the task was set to us of forming groups. Combining the individual disciplines of; Architecture Industrial Design Landscape Architecture Interior Design Once a team had been formed, our goal was to determine each of our individual strengths and weaknesses in factors that may affect the outcome of our design response.

SHAHMEN

JOSH

ANDY

CHARLOTTE

JOSH

MEET THE SKAJJ

To do so, we decided to analyse individual personality characteristics, that may hinder, or be advantageous to our function, as well as allowing our group to identify any weak points.

30%

30% 5%

30%

15%

30% 10% 10% 15% 5%

15% 5%

30% 10%

20% 10%

30%

20%

ANDREW YABSLEY - INDUSTRIAL

After determining project related specialties, we decided that understanding not just our knowledge, but also our functionality as individuals would be a fantastic starting point for delegation of tasks, and the overall functioning as a group.

15% 5% 5%

7.5% 5%

JOSH TAIT - ARCHITECTURE

Namely, sustainability and passive design systems. It resulted in the following diagram shown to the right.

30%

15%

7.5%

JOSH FRATER - ARCHITECTURE

In order to do so we constructed a matrix to conclude the afore mentioned, with specific relation to Woodfordia.

10%

SHAHMEN SUKU - INTERIOR

As previously mentioned - the next task of our process within the group was to determine who would be best suited to which task, within the prescribed project.

CHARLOTTE FLANDERS - LANDSCAPE

30%

The discovery and investigation of personality traits also allowed us to gain an initial understanding of how our personalities may work together, for good, or bad. “THE ABILITY OF A TEAM TO WORK EFFECTIVELY IS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE TEAM MEMBERS.

WHILE ANY TEAM CAN ADJUST TO

ACCOMMODATE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES, THE FEWER THE ADJUSTMENTS, THE

PASSIVE DESIGN KNOWLEDGE MATERIAL KNOWLEDGE

IN MANAGING A TEAM, THE

STRUCTURAL KNOWLEDGE

MORE DATA AVAILABLE TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

SPACE EFFICIENCY

MORE EFFICIENTLY THE TEAM WILL FUNCTION.

TEAM

LEADER

AND

THE

TEAM

MEMBERS,

THE

MANAGEMENT OF THAT TEAM.”

FOCUSED

THE

SUSTAINABILITY KNOWLEDGE CAD AND GRAPHIC KNOWLEDGE

“TEAM BALANCE IS IMPORTANT. WHEN EACH OF THE TWELVE FACTORS HAS AT LEAST

CONTROL

LOW

MODERATE

Having completed our team balance analysis, and come to certain conclusions about each of our conflicting personality traits, we were able to conclude that each of the factors where well represented by at least two or more members of the group. Whilst we were a well rounded and cooperative group, there were a few causes for concern for each person. We concluded them to be as follows:

HIGH

SOCIAL INFLUENCE PATIENCE

CHARLOTTE

FACTORS

AWARE OF THIS AND COMPENSATE FOR IT.”

ANDY

TEAM BALANCE

ONE TEAM MEMBER WHO IS STRONG IN THAT FACTOR, THE TEAM IS WELL BALANCED.

WHEN A FACTOR IS NOT WELL REPRESENTED, THE TEAM LEADER SHOULD CONSTANTLY BE

SHAHMEN

COMPOSURE

IN THE GROUP, SHE FOUND IT HARD TO BE HEARD WITHIN THE GROUP.

JOSH F

POSITIVE EXPECTANCY

HIS INPUT MAY BE MISSED.

CHARLOTTE - CAN BE RATHER QUIET SPOKEN, POSSIBLY DUE TO BEING THE ONLY FEMALE

PRECISION AMBITION

ANDY - LITTLE CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GROUP, AND THERE WAS A FEAR

JOSH F - SCORED MODERATE IN THE FIELD OF ANALYTICAL REASONING, OFTEN CHOOSING TO DESIGN SOMETHING WITH HIS HEART, AND GO WITH HIS GUT FEELING AS OPPOSED TO TAKING A STEP BACK AND USING HIS HEAD.

RESULTS ORIENTATION EXPRESSIVENESS TEAM PLAYER QUALITY ORIENTATION

JOSH T

ANALYTICAL

SHAHMEN - AN ‘ALL-ROUNDER’ SHAHMEN POSSESSES LITTLE HINDRANCE IN THE FIELD OF GROUP WORK.

HOWEVER, SOMETIMES WHEN TIRED HIS PATIENCE COULD BE TESTED.

JOSH T - JOSH CAN BE IMPATIENT AND AT THE BEST OF TIMES PREFERS TO WORK BY HIMSELF AND BE LEFT TO THE TASK AT HAND.

HE WILL NEED TO BE SET TASKS THAT CAN

BE COMPLETED TOGETHER WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER.

HOW DID WE COLLABORATE? Facebook was our main method of collaboration and contact - with easily accessible groups on almost every platform of interaction, it was a fast and effective method of transferring ideas, concepts, files and photographs when we weren’t together physically.

Without a smart device - a phone or tablet, utilising the potential of facebook became redundant. For this reason, smart phones, and tablets, not just because of the ability to text and call - became crucial instruments in our collaboration and contact methods.

Email - whilst made seemingly redundant by the capabilities of facebook, it was often used to transfer larger files, such as maps, models and photographs that were too large to upload to facebook.

Whilst collaborating physically together, model making - together with hand drawing, sketching, and tracing over of maps, plans etc. became our main method of collaboration.

Photography used mainly in the preliminary methods of the design stages, it allowed us to capture insights into site, as well as to easily communicate ideas through sending pictures of completed models and sketches when working solo.

INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS

CONTRIBUTION

Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. driven and courageous.

Practical, reliable and efficient, turns ideas into actions and organises work that needs to be done.

WEAKNESSES

Can ignore incidentals, and can be too

Prone to provocation, offends other’s feelings

Somewhat inflexible, slow to new possibilities

CONTRIBUTION Creative, imaginative, free-thinking. ideas and solves difficult problems.

PLANT

Generates

preoccupied to communicate effectively.

SHAPER

IMPLEMENTOR

CONTRIBUTION

Outgoing, enthusiastic, and communicative. Explores opportunities and develops contacts.

Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options and judges accurately.

Painstaking, conscientious, and anxious. Searches out errors, polishes and perfects.

WEAKNESSES

Can be over optimistic and lose interest.

Lacks drive and ability to inspire, can be critical.

Inclined to worry unduly, reluctant to lead.

RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR MONITOR EVALUATOR

COMPLETER FINISHER

CONTRIBUTION

Mature, confident, identifies talent. Clarifies goals and delegates effectively.

Co-operative, perceptive and diplomatic. and averts friction.

WEAKNESSES

Can be manipulative, offloads own work.

Indecisive and can avoid confrontation.

Contributes on a narrow front, dwells on technicalities.

COORDINATOR

TEAMWORKER

CONTRIBUTION Listens

Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. knowledge and skills in rare supply.

SPECIALIST

BELBIN’S THEORY

Provides

SOCIAL

Team roles are clusters of behaviour, rather than individual traits or characteristics, team roles can be identified in three categories. It becomes necessary to conclude what these three preliminary categories are, so that tasks may be delegated, and are delegated to the correct candidate in order to achieve the highest standard of work.

PREFERRED ROLES - THOSE ROLES WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL IS COMFORTABLE PLAYING, AND WHICH COME NATURALLY. MANAGEABLE ROLES - THOSE ROLES WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL CAN PLAY IF REQUIRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TEAM. THESE MAY BE CULTIVATED TO BROADEN THE INDIVIDUAL’S TEAMWORKING EXPERIENCE.

THINKING

LEAST PREFERRED ROLES - THOSE ROLES IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT NATURALLY OR COMFORTABLY ASSUME. IT IS GENERALLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL AVOIDS CONTRIBUTING IN THESE AREAS, LEST THE PITFALLS OF THE BEHAVIOUR OUTWEIGH THE STRENGTHS. Throughout our group work we all agreed upon aiming to achieve the highest grade possible, and were all willing to take on any role, the rest of the group deemed it necessary to take on. However, by using the recommendations, and theories presented to us by Belbin et al. We tailored a group approach suited to the best wishes of our team.

ACTION

Each of the nine sub-categories or labels, may be simplified into three simple main categories.

SOCIAL ROLES - RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR, COORDINATOR, AND TEAMWORKER THINKING ROLES - PLANT, THE SPECIALIST, MONITOR EVALUATOR ACTION ROLES - COMPLETOR FINISHER, IMPLEMENTOR, SHAPER

Teamwork doesn’t appear magically just because someone mouths the words. It doesn’t thrive just because of the presence of talent and ambition. It doesn’t flourish simply because a team has tasted success...

KRIEGEL & BRANDT 1996, p120

In order for our group to work together more effectively, we researched the principles of activity theory. According to Hasan (1998), activity theory can be defined as:

“...activity is primary, that doing precedes thinking, that goals, images, cognitive models, intentions and abstract notions like ‘definition’ and ‘determinant’ grow out of people doing things...”

“WHOLE WORK ACTIVITY AS A UNIT OF ANALYSIS, WHERE THE ACTIVITY IS BROKEN INTO ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS OF SUBJECT, TOOL, AND OBJECT.” In this respect, the following can be defined:

SUBJECT: my team members, and their individual contributions. OBJECT: the design project that is the intended activity. TOOL: the mediating devices used, in this case for collaboration, throughout the design process.

RULES: sets of conditions, that help shape, and determine how, and why individuals may act a certain way.

DIVISION OF LABOUR: The distribution of actions and operations amongst the collaborative team to achieve the end goal.

Based on the definition that Morf and Weber set in 2000 that we see to the left, our group concluded that deciding to set a tangible brief, that would constantly change and adapt as we progressed through our work would be the best form of attack. For this reason we began drafting models and sketching, each aiming for the task, to (as Morf and Weber put it) “...GROW OUT OF PEOPLE DOING THINGS...”

ACTIVITY THEORY

So how does this apply to our group?... TOOLS - Computers - Models - Drawing utensils - Lectures, uni resources - Journals - Internet - Magazines

SUBJECTS

OBJECT

- Andrew Yabsley - Charlotte Flanders - Shahmen Suku - Josh Frater - Josh Tait

- Design Projects 1,2 - Design Charette - Report Artifact - Summary Poster

RULES

DIVISION OF EFFORT

- Must collaborate - Unit Guidelines - Project Brief Requirements - University Guidelines

COMMUNITY - University

- Students - Tutors - Individual Teams - Individual Team Members

CHARLOTTE FLANDERS LANDSCAPE DESIGN INVESTIGATOR Charlotte - teamworker and investigator. Charlotte being the only female in the team, presented us with the much needed boost of eostrogen, often seeing reason when the rest of us got too attached to one idea. She saw all options, and more often than not, provided us with the ability to see which idea truly was the best through reason. When it came to her own ideas, she would sometimes fail to press them and investigate fully.

BEFORE

AFTER

DISCIPLINE OPINION

TEAMWORKER Had respect for the knowledge of materiality and ergonomics - yet thought it was a little bit of a useless degree, similar to that of interior decorating.

Controlling, liked to force Responsible for almost engineers to do things they everything she uses in her didn’t want to do. life, an under appreciated member of the design family.

Building’s within the environment of redevelopment don’t make too much of an impact, and she is responsible for the overall experience.

When collaborated with, the designer could really enhance the experience for the user, as finish knowledge is what they interact with the most.

innovative Beneficiary to interact with, Offers if done correctly, the building mechanisms and systems can be fully integrated into that can be integrated across the environment and be a all disciplines. centre point of a green space development.

Can bring elements to architecture such as a new method of sensory interaction to a development.

SHAHMEN SUKU INTERIOR DESIGN COORDINATOR Shahmen - monitor and coordinator. Instantly electing himself as the ‘team leader’ he suited the role perfectly. He possesses a fantastic ability to unite people into one goal, as well as being able to see all possibilities before distinguishing the best outcome for the group. Successfully delegated tasks, and didn’t fall into the trap of distributing his own work to others.

BEFORE

AFTER

DISCIPLINE OPINION

MONITOR Had respect for the knowledge of materiality and ergonomics - believed that if collaboration with an architect existed buildings could be taken to a new level.

Controlling, liked to force Can offer special, tailor engineers to do things they made systems to make didn’t want to do, and could many of their interior dreams be self righteous about their a reality in regards to user own projects. interaction.

When used in interior design, green space can be seen as a little cliché and a waste of space.

Can offer more to an overall project and development, as opposed to just refurbishment and refit.

Beneficiary to interact with, Further reinforced ideas of if done correctly, the industrial designers. building’s interior spaces can become a new system for which the user to become attached greatly to.

Little change, yet small splashes of flora can add a new dimension to the space.

JOSH FRATER ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTOR Josh - finisher and implementor. Josh is a true workhorse, willing to take on any task, never growing old of it, and completing it to the best of his ability. Josh would pick up a lot of the slack when it came to others falling behind, or failing to fully finish the task. Could sometimes however, dwell for too long on one particular subject.

BEFORE

AFTER

DISCIPLINE OPINION

FINISHER Had respect for the knowledge of materiality and ergonomics - yet thought it was a little bit of a useless degree, similar to that of interior decorating.

Controlling, liked to force Responsible for almost engineers to do things they everything she uses in her didn’t want to do. life, an under appreciated member of the design family.

Building’s within the environment of redevelopment don’t make too much of an impact, and she is responsible for the overall experience.

When collaborated with, the designer could really enhance the experience for the user, as finish knowledge is what they interact with the most.

Can bring elements to architecture such as a new method of sensory interaction to a development.

ANDREW YABSLEY INDUSTRIAL DESIGN MONITOR Andy - Plant and Monitor. Andy was very much a free spirit throughout the design and assignment processes, inputting rarely, yet when he did, coming up with truly amazing ideas and solutions. He was solely responsible for many of the innovations as well as providing us with some brilliant concept sketches. Could sometimes be a little absent in group meetings - tasks would have to be delegated and we had to just let him get on with it by himself.

BEFORE

AFTER

DISCIPLINE OPINION

PLANT Had respect for the knowledge of materiality and ergonomics - yet thought it was a little bit of a useless degree, similar to that of interior decorating.

Controlling, liked to force Responsible for almost engineers to do things they everything she uses in her didn’t want to do. life, an under appreciated member of the design family.

Building’s within the environment of redevelopment don’t make too much of an impact, and she is responsible for the overall experience.

When collaborated with, the designer could really enhance the experience for the user, as finish knowledge is what they interact with the most.

Beneficiary to interact with, Offers innovative if done correctly, the building mechanisms and systems can be fully integrated into that can be integrated across all disciplines. the environment and be a centre point of a green space development.

Can bring elements to architecture such as a new method of sensory interaction to a development.

JOSH TAIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTOR Josh - shaper, implementor. Stubborn and often single minded, Josh was a struggle for Shahmen to work with some of the time. Would often be particular, and restrict the group from moving on until something had been perfected and refined. Was tasked with the graphic components, as well as the computer modelling for the project.

BEFORE

AFTER

DISCIPLINE OPINION

SHAPER Had respect for the knowledge of materiality and ergonomics - yet thought it was a little bit of a useless degree, similar to that of interior decorating.

Controlling, liked to force Responsible for almost engineers to do things they everything she uses in her didn’t want to do. life, an under appreciated member of the design family.

Building’s within the environment of redevelopment don’t make too much of an impact, and she is responsible for the overall experience.

When collaborated with, the designer could really enhance the experience for the user, as finish knowledge is what they interact with the most.

Can bring elements to architecture such as a new method of sensory interaction to a development.

DESIGN REVIEW

BRIEF To deliver the final, refined concept for the woodfordia studios, including all relevant drawings and plans, and presented in 2 x A1 panels. A physical model to an appropriate scale was also to be included.

DELEGATION OF TASKS As a preliminary task, this gave us a good opportunity to investigae and experiment with our comfortable and preferred tasks and learning styles. Furthering this concept, the following tasks were delegated: Shahmen - compilation of research and construction of the brief Charlotte - initial site visit, prior to year level site visit, as well as sketch mapping to be refined Josh F - digital mapping and compilation of information Andy - sketch mapping and compilation of research, refinement of the brief Josh T - digital mapping and the digital compilation of the poster

PROBLEMS As a preliminary task, there weren’t too many problems faced, however, due to the small amount of work needing to be investigated, Shahmen felt that the work wasn’t shared evenly, an admirable quality though, with the majority of work falling upon both Josh’s shoulders.

SUCCESSES & LOOKING TO THE FUTURE An indepth analysis, and a successfully compiled poster and series of maps allowed us to easily investigate potential siting, as well as constraints of the whole development that we can put to good use in the following tasks.

PROJECT OUTCOME

1D1 - THE RESEARCH AND SKAJJ

BRIEF To deliver the conceptual stage for the woodfordia studios, including all relevant drawings and plans, and presented in 1 x A1 panels. A physical model to an appropriate scale was also to be included.

DELEGATION OF TASKS

Having worked together, and having worked on tasks slightly representative of our capabilities and preferred tasks in 1D2, we chose to continue following the principle of working on discipline, and personally specialized tasks. This resulted in the following: Shahmen - compilation of slides, and relevant diagramming, supported by Andy. Charlotte - pick up the areas missed by others, and refine the surrounding vegetation for the cabin, and investigate the concept of a precinct. Josh F - completion of the model, and investigate the concept of a precinct. Josh T - graphic design of the posters, completion of the CAD model, rendering, and diagramming Andy - conceptual sketching, refinement of interior systems for space saving.

PROBLEMS Slides didnt portray quite exactly what we were talking about in the presentation, as a result, our methods of collaboration weren’t communicated properly. By planning our time a little better as individuals, we may all have more to contribute to the slides and therefore, presentation as a whole.

SUCCESSES & LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Collaboration and communication aside, the actual proposal for our studios was almost completely refined. We just had a few more things to figure out, such as a blind and window mechanism, as well as the organisation of the precinct.

PROJECT OUTCOME

1D2 - THE CONCEPT AND SKAJJ

DELEGATION OF TASKS By now, we had a strong idea of what each other were capable. Working on the success we had in 1D2, we chose once again to stick with our preferred tasks. Shahmen - compilation of slides, and relevant diagramming, supported by Andy. Charlotte - pick up the areas missed by others, and refine the surrounding vegetation for the precinct. Josh F - completion of the model, and completion of the site map. Josh T - graphic design of the posters, completion of the CAD model, rendering, and diagramming Andy - conceptual sketching, refinement of interior systems for space saving, and a blind mechanism.

PROBLEMS Thankfully, by now we had worked out many of the kinks in our collaborative effort, and as a result, there were no clashes in personality, workload or design, resulting in a smooth operation of the final assignment.

SUCCESSES The cumulative effort of everyone to get us over the line, and to present a fully refined concept we were all extremely happy with a seamless interaction and group function.

PROJECT OUTCOME

1D3 - THE PROPOSAL AND SKAJJ

Six Sigma - a strategic approach to process improvement. In his report, (Six Sigma Team Dynamics, 2002) there are nine key reasons why a team will fail or flounder at the required task. They are as follows:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

They do not identify a leader

They do not establish roles and responsibilities They do not establish a set of goals and objectives

SIX SIGMA From the beginning, Shahmen, as the current director and organiser for the QUT design organisation - The Dub - naturally suited the role of leader from the beginning. Something we were all happy to accept. As a result, an established leader was constantly present from the get go of the unit. From the beginning of week one, we put a lot of effort into analysing and discussing our various strengths, weaknesses, preferred roles, and non-preferred roles. As such, roles, and responsiblities were founded instantly, and stuck with for the duration of the unit - as this proved to be a successful outcome. Goals were made - more specifically a single goal was made - as this was all that was deemed to be necessary; that we would do nothing, but the best of our ability, and only stop once the team was done. Objectives however, were set weekly so as to meet our overall goal.

They do not establish an agenda for meetings

Whilst a formal agenda was not set for each weekly meeting, a rough plan for each meeting was set - or at least an overall goal for each meeting set. For instance we would set meetings with the end goal being finishing the conceptual massing of the structure, or completing the layout of the precinct, or choosing the surrounding flora etc.

They do not have a method to determine how they will reach agreement

Whilst we did not have a set method when it came to reaching agreement over a certain topic, we did have the communication skills, and understanding of each others wishes to overcome any form of disagreement, or argument, ultimately resulting in the best choice for the team.

They do not have a set of ground rules for running their meetings

We didnt have a set of ground rules in writing for running our meetings - we operated off understanding and respect towards each others disciplinary knowledge, and understanding of our topic fields.

They do not use quality tools

Experience with quality tools is not something we faced as a group - utilizing all options before us including photoshop, illustrator, sketchup, GIS software, pens, paper, and model making material, we managed to cover every base and option within our concepts.

They do not communicate

Communication was key. Enough said.

They waste an extraodinary amount of time just getting started

As previously mentioned, we got started on the tasks straight away, whether it be delegating tasks, investigating character types, personality types, preferred tasks, or simply reading the brief sheets - there was not a week that went by where something was not accomplished.

REFELECTIONS

KRIEGEL & BRANDT 1996, p120

PERSONAL REFLECTION

WORKING WITH SKAJJ OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS HAS TAUGHT ME A NUMBER OF THINGS ABOUT MYSELF AND ABOUT COLLABORATION, NAMELY THE FOLLOWING: - Knowing and having a good relationship with your team mates prior to the project is probably the most helpful thing that could happen, especially if you’ve worked with them before and know their strengths and weaknesses. - Having a clearly defined leader in the team allows tasks to be delegated much easier than if everyone was on the same level role-wise. - Knowing not just others, but your own strengths and weaknesses also facilitates the task delegation process. A major strength of mine that was greatly utlisied was my knowledge of computer software and rendering concepts. I discovered that one of my biggest weaknesses however, was that I could be rather arrogant in my capabilities, forcing others to trust me on my techniques, rather than give them a shot. - Industrial design and architecture are actually really quite similar - industrial design being described as “all about creating products and concepts to better the lives of people. They look at user experience, ergonomics, manufacturing, business systems, technology and sustainability.” (O’Rourke 2012). These things are very similar to architecture, however in a broader sense, architects also look at building systems, tectonics, adjacency analysis, and materiality. The real difference between them is scale. They look to the user scale, while we look to the built environment scale. - Understanding a common goal and working towards something that is real and could go beyond just a university project really boosts motivation All these things, as well as the skills I’ve picked up throughout this project are things I can take onto other collaborative projects. It wasn’t until after the project that I found out about the theories and models of teamwork, and I think the reason we did so well was that we knew each other to begin with. A lot of the mystery was already gone. So next time, when I enter a group of unknown individuals, I can call on the knowledge I have learned from these theories and apply it to the situation.

Tuckman’s Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing model relates greatly to our group as the model progresses in theory, much how our group progresses in practice. The model evolves through four different stages, these stages being:

FORMING... STORMING... NORMING... PERFORMING...

GROUP REFLECTIONS

FORMING...

Team is positive and excited as a vision and common goals are established. The leader plays a domiant role while other team members roles are not yet clear. (Chapman 2009)

A very prominent stage for our group, there was notable excitement, and an eager air of enthusiasm, not just about the prescribed task, but also about the real-life application, and problem solving this group would project upon us. For most of us, this was the first time we had the chance to work with other discpline specific members, looking to each other as specialists in our fields, from which we could better our designs.

STORMING...

Team members vie for positions as their roles become clearer, and disputes may occur. Members start to notice how others work and the leader’s authority may be challenged. This is the stage where many groups fail as the lose sight of the end goal or become overwhelmed with the amount of work to do (Chapman 2009).

The design charette stage was namely were this occurred, it was here at first that a conflict emerged between Shahmen, and myself, as we vied for the role of leader. Settling back into my previous role,with the understanding that Shahmen truly was a better coordinator, this hurdle was overcome. Secondly, another conflict arose in the style at which we as a group chose to work, Josh and I opting to come up with what we, as architects would propose, whilst the others worked together to produce a secondary model - the conflict was overcome by combining the two and the respective good qualities of both.

NORMING...

The team becomes closer and develops a unified working style. Roles and responsibilities become accepted by all. The leader facilitates and big decisions are made by the group (Chapman 2009).

By this stage had completed the first and second design projects and were approaching the third and final assessment piece as group. By now we knew we could rely on each other to complete certain tasks, we knew each others strengths and weakness, not only with knowledge, but also with tools and communication techniques. There wasnt a moment where we felt that we would slip back to the storming stage as everyone knew we had each other’s backs and would let each other down with our prescribed tasks.

PERFORMING...

At this point the team can see the shared vision clearing, and hard work is directly linked to achieving this goal. The team is able to work on its own, with delegated tasks from the leader. The leader mainly overseas and helps where necessary (Chapman 2009).

Truer words have never been spoken with relation to our task as a collaborative team - we had full faith in each others abilities, we each knew what we had to do, and what was left to complete to achieve our goal, all Shahmen as team leader had to do was to check up to ensure that our tasks were beign completed - a mere formality though.

REFERENCES

REFER ENCES

BELBIN, MEREDITH. 2013. “BELBIN TEAM ROLES”. ACCESSED OCTOBER 19, 2013. HTTP://WWW.BEL-

BIN.COM/RTE.ASP?ID=8.

CHAPMAN, ALAN. 2009. “TUCKMAN FORMING STORMING NORMING PERFORMING MODEL”. ACCESSED OCTOBER 7, 2013. HTTP://WWW.BUSINESSBALLS.COM/TUCKMANFORMINGSTORMINGNORMINGPERFORMING.HTM. ECKES, GEORGE. 2002. SIX SIGMA TEAM DYNAMICS: THE ELUSIVE KEY TO PROJECT SUCCESS. NEW JERSEY: JOHN WILEY & SONS. ACCESSED OCTOBER 6, 2013. HTTP://LIBRARY.BOOKS24X7.COM.EZP01.LIBRARY.QUT.EDU.AU/TOC.ASPX?SITE=BPNPJ&BOOKID=5405. GREY, JIM. N.D. “DEB601.10 INTERVIEW05” PODCAST AUDIO: M4A. ACCESSED OCTOBER 20, 2013.

HTTP://BLACKBOARD.QUT.EDU.AU/WEBAPPS/LOBJ-PODCAST-BB_BB60/-

REFERENCES

FILES/_4452286_1/ON%20COLLABORATION-JIM%20GREY.M4A.

PICARIELLO, GARY. 2010. “THE TOP TEN BENEFITS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT”. ACCESSED OCTOBER 12, 2013. HTTP://WWW.BRIGHTHUBPM.COM/PROJECT-PLANNING/2350-THE-TOP-TEN-BENEFITS-OF-PROJECT-MANAGEMENT/. ROESLER, STEVE. 2010. “WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN TEAMS”. ACCESSED OCTOBER 12, 2013. HTTP://WW-

W.ALLTHINGSWORKPLACE.COM/TEAMS/.

“TEAM.” 2013. IN OXFORD DICTIONARIES. ACCESSED OCTOBER 5, 2013. HTTP://OXFORDDICTIONAR-

IES.COM/DEFINITION/ENGLISH/TEAM?Q=TEAM.

TRINH, YEN. N.D. “DEB601.10 INTERVIEW01” PODCAST AUDIO: M4A. ACCESSED OCTOBER 15, 2013. HTTP://BLACKBOARD.QUT.EDU.AU/WEBAPPS/LOBJ-PODCAST-BB_BB60/FILES/_4412527_1/ON%20COLLABORATION-YEN%20TRINH.M4A. UNIVERSITY OF WOLONGONG, 2007. “ACTIVITY THEORY: A FRAMEWORK FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS”. ACCESSED OCTOBER 22, 2013. HTTP://RO.UOW.EDU.AU/CGI/VIEWCONTENT.CGI?ARTICLE=1434&CONTEXT=COMMPAPERS.