Explore the vast range of titles available.

Shared understanding has been claimed to be crucial for effective collaboration of researchers and practitioners. Heterogeneity in work groups further strengthens the challenge of integrating understanding among diverse group members. Nevertheless, shared understanding and especially its formation are largely unexplored. After conceptualizing shared understanding, we apply collaboration engineering to derive a validated collaboration process module (compound thinkLet \"MindMerger\") to systematically support heterogeneous work groups in building shared understanding. We conduct a large-scale action research study at a German car manufacturing company. The evaluation indicates that with the use of MindMerger, team learning behaviors occur, and shared understanding of the tasks in complex work processes increases among experienced diverse tool and dye makers. Thus, the validated compound thinkLet MindMerger provides designers of collaborative work practices with a reusable module of activities to solve clarification issues in group work early on. Furthermore, findings from the field study contribute to the conceptualization of the largely unexplored phenomenon of shared understanding and its formation.

Trust is frequently investigated as an indicator of a mutual relationship. Trust is especially important for globally distributed collaboration in light of the lack of face-to-face interactions. As the perception of trust is a dynamic process, however, little research is conducted measuring trust development. Whether facilitation intervention is beneficial for trust development is also unknown. In order to fill the research gaps, we followed a design science approach and incorporated collaboration engineering into the design of the treatment. Data were collected in a series of experiments with Chinese and U.S. mixed teams, including a longitudinal survey, interviews, and documentation. Through the comparison of the treatment group with the control group, we found that trust was significantly improved in the treatment group. In addition, several trust antecedents were found to explain the development. The power of facilitated collaboration is also validated as helpful for trust development. This research makes several implications, such as proposing a series of trust antecedents, a treatment design of a collaboration engineering (CE) approach for trust improvement, and a new context application of CE. This research could also help the practitioners in globally distributed collaboration who want to improve trust over time.

Collaboration Engineering (CE) is an approach for the design and deployment of repeatable collaborative work practices that can be executed by domain experts without the ongoing support of external collaboration professionals. Since 2001, CE has been an active and productive topic of research that has attracted scientists from different backgrounds and disciplines. CE research started with studies on ways to transfer professional collaboration expertise to novices using a pattern language called thinkLets. Subsequent research focused on the development of theories to explain key phenomena, the development of a structured design methodology, training methods, technology support, design theories, and various field and experimental studies focusing on specific aspects of the CE approach. This paper details the contributions from CE research and practice based on a literature assessment of 331 publications. It extracts the key insights from the body of CE research thus far, identifies significant areas of inquiry that have not yet been explored, and looks ahead at the CE research opportunities that are emerging as our society, organizations, technologies, and the nature of collaboration evolve.

Convergence is a collaborative activity in which members of group focus on what they consider the most promising or important contributions resulting from an ideation activity. Convergence is critical in helping a group focus their efforts on issues that are worthy of further attention. In the current study, we further research in this area by exploring and characterizing the effects of a particular convergence intervention, the FastFocus technique, in the context of a crowdsourcing project. We conducted an exploratory case study of artifacts generated by a crowd of managers addressing a real problem identification and clarification task in a large financial services organization. Using an online crowdsourcing tool, a professional facilitator led participants during preset periods through a convergence activity that focused on the brainstorming contributions that had been generated prior. To better understand the effects of the convergence technique on the group’s ideas, we compared the raw problem statements to the final output of the convergence activities in terms of the number of unique ideas present, as well as the ambiguity of the ideas. Using the FastFocus convergence technique reduced the number of concepts by 76%. Ambiguity was reduced from 45% in the set of problem statements to 3% in the converged set of problem statements. We demonstrate with these findings that the outcomes of group convergence processes in real settings can be measured, enabling future research which seeks to evaluate and understand convergence in groups. Aspects of brainstorming instructions were also identified that may make it possible to reduce the ambiguity of problem statements.

Field research and laboratory experiments suggest that, under certain circumstances, people using group support systems (GSS) can be significantly more productive than people who do not use them. Yet, despite their demonstrated potential, GSS have been slow to diffuse across organizations. Drawing on the Technology Transition Model, the paper argues that the high conceptual load of GSS (i.e., understanding of the intended effect of GSS functionality) encourages organizations to employ expert facilitators to wield the technology on behalf of others. Economic and political factors mitigate against facilitators remaining long term in GSS facilities that focus on supporting nonroutine, ad hoc projects. This especially hampers scaling GSS technology to support distributed collaboration. An alternative and sustainable way for organizations to derive value from GSS lies in an approach called \"collaboration engineering\": the development of repeatable collaborative processes that are conducted by practitioners themselves. To enable the development of such processes, this paper proposes the thinkLet concept, a codified packet of facilitation skill that can be applied by practitioners to achieve predictable, repeatable patterns of collaboration, such as divergence or convergence.A thinkLet specifies the facilitator'schoices and actions in terms of the GSS tool used, the configuration of this tool, and scripted prompts to accomplish a pattern of collaboration in a group. Using thinkLets as building blocks, facilitators can develop and transfer repeatable collaborative processes to practitioners. Given the limited availability of expert facilitators, collaboration engineering with thinkLets may become a sine qua non for organizations to effectively support virtual work teams.

Organizations must be creative continuously to survive and thrive in today's highly competitive, rapidly changing environment. A century of creativity research has produced several descriptive models creativity, and hundreds of prescriptions for interventions that demonstrably improve creativity. This paper presents the cognitive network model (CNM) as a causal model of the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to creative solutions in the human mind. The model may explain why creativity prescriptions work as they do. The model may also provide a basis for deriving new techniques to further enhance creativity. The paper tests the model in an experiment where 61 four-person groups used either free-brainstorming or one of three variations on directed-brainstorming to generate solutions for one of two unstructured tasks. In both tasks, people using directed-brainstorming produced more solutions with high creativity ratings, produced solutions with higher average creativity ratings, and produced higher concentrations of creative solutions than did people using free-brainstorming. Significant differences in creativity were also found among the three variations on directed-brainstorming. The findings were consistent with the CNM.

Bonus distribution in enterprises or course allocation at universities are examples of sensitive multi-unit assignment problems, where a set of resources is to be allocated among a set of agents having multi-unit demands. Automatic processes exist, based on quantitative information, for example bids or preference ranking, or even on lotteries. In sensitive cases, however, decisions are taken by persons also using qualitative information. At present, no multi-unit assignment system supports both quantitative and qualitative information. In this paper, we propose MUAP-LIS, an interactive process for multi-assignment problems where, in addition to bids and preferences, agents can give arguments to motivate their choices. Bids are used to automatically make pre-assignments, qualitative arguments and preferences help decision makers break ties in a founded way. A group decision support system, based on Logical Information Systems, allows decision makers to handle bids, arguments and preferences in a unified interface. We say that a process is p-equitable for a property p if all agents satisfying p are treated equally. We formally demonstrate that MUAP-LIS is p-equitable for a number of properties on bids, arguments and preferences. It is also Pareto-efficient and Gale–Shapley-stable with respect to bids. A successful course allocation case study is reported. It spans over two university years. The decision makers were confident about the process and the resulting assignment. Furthermore, the students, even the ones who did not get all their wishes, found the process to be equitable.

In the field of collaboration engineering, thinkLets describe reusable and transferable collaborative activities to reproduce known patterns of collaboration. This paper focuses on thinkLets of the pattern Generate, which define collaboration activities to produce and share new contributions by a group. We address the question whether the small number of published Generate thinkLets can adequately represent the various approaches contained in published idea generation techniques. We used a cognitive model to analyze 101 idea generation techniques with regard to the underlying mental principles that stimulate the ideation process by deliberately activating larger areas of the knowledge network. We present three changes of perspective based on these principles, which can be used to formalize the underlying mechanisms of idea generation techniques. The paper shows how these three principles can be used to improve Generate thinkLets and discusses how this formalization can improve the applicability of information systems for ideation processes.

Although a global virtual team (GVT) can provide organizations with increased competitive advantages and greater flexibility due to its unique ability to transcend traditional boundaries of time, locations, and organizational constraints, knowledge sharing in globally dispersed and culturally diverse members also poses unique challenges to organizations wishing to capitalize on diverse knowledge of GVTs. This work, therefore, examines extant literature on collaboration engineering (CE) and thinkLets and further proposes that CE and thinkLets can help organizations develop predictable patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviour and a sense of structure in GVT collaboration. Implications of using CE and thinkLets for organizational practice and research are also discussed in the virtual collaboration context.

Collaboration Engineering is an approach to create sustained collaboration support by designing collaborative work practices for high-value recurring tasks, and transferring those designs to practitioners to execute for themselves without ongoing support from collaboration professionals. A key assumption in this approach is that we can predictably design collaboration processes. In this paper we explore this assumption to understand whether collaboration can, in fact, be designed, and elaborate on the role of thinkLets in the engineering of collaborative work practices. ThinkLets are design patterns for collaborative interactions.