erbil, dogan, collaboration within student design teams

This paper investigates design collaboration with referenceto convergent and divergent idea generation processes inarchitectural design teams entering a design competition.Study of design teams offer a unique opportunity toinvestigate how creativity is fostered through collaborativework. While views of creativity often relate creativity toindividual originality, collaboration requires differentdesigners to work together towards one common designidea and consider as many different ideas as possible. Incollaborative design, it would be easier to offer a variety ofideas but equally difficult to establish a consensus on asingle idea. To investigate the role of convergent anddivergent thinking in the design process, we interviewedthree groups of architecture students who participated incompetitions as a team. Interviews were analysedthematically to investigate how the teams overcamespatial, temporal, conceptual, and technological barriers.We conclude that the barriers and roles of members indesign collaboration interact with convergent anddivergent concept generation.

Key wordscollaboration, architecture, design practice

IntroductionCollaboration has an important role in architectural design(Larsson, 2003) and collaborative work can enhancecreativity through facilitating diversity of ideas (Fischer,2005). Winer and Ray (1994) state that collaboration is aprocess that gets people together and work together innew ways (p.10). Furthermore, as Cuff (1991) puts itrightly so, architecture is a social practice whose artifactsare constructed by the hands of individual architects,their coworkers, the organisations they work within, thearray of contributors from clients to consultants and theircolleagues, and by larger socioeconomic forces that affectthe profession (p.13). Studies in design increasinglyemphasise the role of collaborative work in design andlooks into the dynamics of collaboration in design. Cuff(1991) states that if good design is to emerge fromgroups, we must acknowledge the situation and learn asmuch as we can about it in order to work togethereffectively (p.13). Creativity in design, however, isassociated with individuality at the highest level. What weknow about design activity stems from studies ofindividual designers (Cross & Cross, 1995). While views ofcreativity often relate creativity to individual originality,collaboration requires different designers to work together

towards one common design idea and consider as manydifferent ideas as possible.

This study investigates collaboration within student designteams participating in architectural design competitions.Competitions often have fixed deadlines, specific set ofrequirements, and they force members of the team to bethe best among a large number of other competitors.Given the strained structure of competitions, mostdesigners establish either short-term or long-termcollaborations with other designers. Study of design teamsoffer a unique opportunity to investigate how creativity isfostered through collaborative work. Creativity may requireexploration of a wide variety of alternatives during theconceptual phase of design before one gets fixated on asingle idea. In collaborative design, one might think itwould be easier to offer a variety of ideas but equallydifficult to establish a consensus on a single idea.

This study focuses on two research issues. First, most ofthe successful projects in architectural competitions aregroup works. We would like to know how successfuldesign teams work in deciding on a single design idea andin elaborating that idea. Second, we would like toinvestigate how design teams with different characteristicsmanage to maximise the number of alternatives(divergent thinking) while keeping in mind that out ofthese alternatives one single idea need to be followed inthe subsequent phases of design (convergent thinking).Guilford (1973) describes creativity in reference toconvergent and divergent thinking and he distinguishesthem as follows: Convergent thinkingis aimed toward asingle correct answer. Divergent thinking is inquiring,searching around, often leading to unconventional andunexpected answers (p.1).

To investigate the role of convergent and divergentthinking in the design process, we interviewed threegroups of architecture students who participated incompetitions as a team. We interviewed the groupsseparately following a semi-structured interview format.Each team was interviewed with all the team memberspresent during the semi-structured interview because wewanted to observe and understand the communicationand relationships among them. In addition to interviews,we also collected all sketches, notes, and digital files fromthe design process.

Collaboration within Student Design Teams Participating inArchitectural Design Competitions

Livanur Erbil, Izmir Institute of Technology

Fehmi Dogan, Izmir Institute of Technology

70

RESEA

RC

H

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 17.3

71

RESEA

RC

H


Creativity, convergent and divergent thinkingAccording to Finke et al. (1992) creativity consists of firstgenerating novel cognitive structures, with retrieving,associating, synthesising, converting and constitutinganalogies, and second of exploring the creativeimplications of new structures, with binding findings,interpreting, deducing, altering context, and theory testing.Ashton-James and Chartand (2009) point out theimportance of convergent and divergent thinking increativity as follows: being creative requires bothconvergent and divergent thinking capabilities to differingdegrees depending upon the nature of the problem(p.1036). According to Cropley (2006), creative thinkinginvolves generation of novelty (via divergent thinking) andevaluation of the novelty (via convergent thinking)(p.391).

According to Ashton-James and Chartand (2009)divergent thinking is related to the capability of alteringbetween mental categories and perspectives. It simplifieswide browsing ability (thinking outside of the box) andthe creation of dissimilar, freely related ideas (Guilford,1950, p. 1036). In contrast to divergent thinking,convergent thinking does not leave any room forambiguity (Cropley, 2006). In creative problem solving,convergent and divergent thinking styles offer differentadvantages. Convergent thinking enables collaboration(Larey & Paulus, 1999), while divergent thinking supportsnovelty and thinking about a problem from differentperspectives (Nemeth & Rogers, 1996).

As Basadur et al., (2000) state creative thinking may occurthrough iterations between divergent and convergentthinking. Divergent thinking enhances the search forseveral ways of progress and the invention of new ideas,strategies, and links. Convergent thinking processenhances the combination and improvement of ideasgenerated in the divergent thinking process. Fromdivergent thinking to convergent thinking, the emphasischanges from searching to operation and trying out. Maindifference between convergent and divergent thinking isthat convergent thinking mostly generates orthodoxy anddivergent thinking usually generates variability (Cropley,2006, p. 391). Runco (2003) points out that divergentand convergent thinking should work together. Cropley(2006) states that convergent thinking is a prerequisitefor effective divergent thinking (p.400) and thatdivergent thinking and convergent thinking seem to addsomething to each other (p.401).

For both individual designers and design teams theiterative process between divergent and convergentthinking poses difficulty. Designers sometimes fixate on an

idea too early or they explore too many ideas withoutdeciding on a single idea at a timely fashion. On one handthe exploration needs to be widened, on the other handthere needs to be focus in the exploration.

Creativity in collaborationFischer (2005) states the necessity of collaboration forcreativity and knowledge sharing as follows: "Creativitygrows out of the relationship between individuals andtheir work, and from the interactions between anindividual and other human beings. Because complexproblems require more knowledge than any single personpossesses, it is necessary that all involved stakeholdersparticipate, communicate, collaborate, and learn from eachother (p.128). Collaboration in architectural designrequires collaborating designers working together to solvedesign problems and reach at one product.

Designers have to manage both when to carry outparticular tasks, and what tasks to undertake (Vera, Kvan,West, & Lai, 1998, p. 504) during the design process.Creativity can occur anywhere and anytime, therefore,collaborating designers have to cope with spatial (acrossdistance), temporal (across time), conceptual (acrossdifferent communities of practice), and technological(between persons and artifacts) barriers (Fischer, 2004,p. 152).

What is known about design activity and design processesoriginate from studies of individual designers (Cross &Cross, 1995). Compared to working alone, working in ateam introduces different problems and possibilities fordesigners. Cross and Cross (1995) state that whilecommunication is one of the major and mostacknowledged problems in collaboration there are othersthat are as important. They list the following as otherpotential areas of problems in collaboration: (1) Rolesand relationships; (2) Planning and acting; (3) Informationgathering and sharing; (4) Problem analysing andunderstanding; (5) Concept generating and adopting; and(6) Conflict avoiding and resolving (Cross & Cross, 1995,p. 144).

MethodologyWe conducted semi-structured focus interviews with threeteams of architectural students who had entered designcompetitions (Table 1). In addition to focus interviews, wecollected documents from the design process such asmembers sketches, notes, digital files, and modelphotographs. The students were second and third yearstudents at the time of the interviews and they hadentered competitions during the previous summer. In twoof the teams there were four students (Team A and B)


and the third (Team C) had three members. The first twoteams had almost exactly the same composition. From thefirst competition to the second, only one student droppedout of the team and a new one joined the group. Studentsformed their teams on their own and prepared for thecompetitions outside of the school hours. Thecompetitions were student competitions open to allinterested students from Turkey.

We decided to interview with these teams because, firstthe teams had participated in the competitions recentlybefore the interviews were conducted; second thecompetition projects were already completed; third theteams were constituted spontaneously; and fourth theywere accessible.

The reason why we conducted interviews was because weinquired about team members perceptions of how thecollaboration worked for each team. Furthermore, weinterviewed the members together following the format offocus group interview because we wanted to observe thediscussion to evolve spontaneously among teammembers and to understand the style of communicationand relationships among them. The interviews includedseven questions that were open-ended. The aim of theinterviews was to disclose the design process of the teamsto understand their idea generation process and theirconsensus building. During interviews we wereinvestigating how each team managed to widen theexploration as much as possible (divergent thinking) andhow they manage to achieve a consensus on a single idea(convergent thinking). Second, we also asked themembers of the teams to describe their individual

performances and roles in the design process. Third, weinquired what the members would change or keep if theywere going to participate in a competition again.

The interviews covered three topics: how the teams wereorganised, how responsibilities were shared, and howdivergence and convergence were achieved. The settingsof the interviews were selected as such that studentswould feel comfortable in an informal atmosphere. Thecollected additional material provided primary sources forreconstructing the design process for each team.

Results and discussionCollaboration in the design teamsOne common strategy for all the interviewed teams toovercome spatial barriers (Fischer, 2004) was to work inthe same place. Teams A and B lived and worked in thesame places during the whole competition. Contrary to theother teams, Team C worked in different places at thebeginning, later they moved to the same place to avoidspatial barriers. One of the members of Team C statedthat in the beginnings we were working separately, at ourhomes. Later, we realised we couldnt communicate welland we decided to move to school. We stayed at schoolfor a while. But in the last two days we worked in differentplaces, because each of us knew their responsibilities.

When working in the same place but at different times,temporal barriers (Fischer, 2004) were overcome byleaving messages or sketches on a board or paper.Information gathering and sharing (see Cross & Cross,1995; Klein & Lu, 1989) was sustained by creatingcommon work environments such as hanging a large size


72

RESEA

RC

H


Table#1 Numberof teammembers

Member # Gender ofTeamMembers

Grades Competition Name CompetitionDescriptions

Team A 4

1. A12. A23. A34. A4

FMMM

2nd2nd2nd2nd

Design for Kadky Pierand Its Surroundings

National, Student,Idea Competition

Team B 4

1. A12. A23. A34. B4

MMMM

3rd3rd3rd3rd

Urban Dreams 5: Re-evaluation of EGOHangars and Its Site


Team C 3

1. A2. B3. C

FFM

3rd3rd3rd

uhadarolu 2011Competition: "UrbanFace O Platform Idea"


Table 1. Team members and participated competitions

paper on a wall to write and sketch ideas (figure 1). Amember of Team A stated that we were together all thetimes. We had a paper hung on the wall. Every one of uswas sketching or writing their ideas and thoughts on thepaper. The shared big white board (figure 1) was used asa discussion board and message board. A member ofTeam A mentioned that we were encouraging those whowere not self-confident, and kept giving them the pencil tosketch. Anyone of us could step in while working on thesketch papers. I think, while discussing on the project,having a pencil in our hands to sketch ideas instantly wasan advantage. Moreover, Team B used the board forrecording all members ideas and sketches to check untilthe end of the process. Team A also used a similar boardbut the board (figure 2) was not always hung on the wall.The board was used for concept generation anddiscussion. Although Team C used a logbook to shareideas, temporal barriers could not be overcome withoutworking in the same place.

Teams used the World Wide Web and their lecturersadvises whenever they needed more information andclarification. The misunderstandings were resolved throughtrying out ideas by sketching design ideas.

Although the groups tried to plan their working process,they didnt specifically felt pressured to follow their plan.This made one of the teams loose time. Even when allsteps were planned, there were plenty of unpredictedissues such as controversies among the members ondesign ideas or indecisiveness about presentation styles orinsufficiency about aimed design representation methods.

Conceptual problems (Fischer, 2004) emerged repeatedlyamong team members in spite of attending the samearchitecture school and being in the same class. Theteams followed a trial-and-error heuristics to cope withconceptual problems or they determined and followedwhat the majority of them believed in. A commonmember of Team A and B stated that when we haddisagreements about a design idea, I was mentioning thedeficiencies or inaccurate points of the project. Eachinterviewed team utilised different strategies of problemanalysis and definition. Although there was one designproblem for each competition, each member focused and


73

RESEA

RC

H


Figure 1. Shared white board facilitating idea sharing through words.Source: Team B. (2011)

Figure 2. Shared white board facilitating idea sharingthrough sketches.Source: Team A. (2011)

emphasised a different aspect of the same problem. InTeam A and B, the analysis of the problem was conductedand discussed on a big white board (figure 1 and figure2), while Team C preferred writing or sketching in anotebook, which they used more like a logbook. Evenwhen the team members kept finding different problemsof the design task description, they managed to achieve aconsensus on a single solution that they kept anddeveloped until the end.

Roles and relationships (see Cross & Cross, 1995) wereshaped informally as a result of their friendship from theschool environment. One of Team A members indicatedthat we realised from studio works that we can work asa group, and then we asked ourselves why we do notparticipate in a competition. It is important to share ourideas among us without any hesitation The teammembers shared responsibilities spontaneously accordingto their strengths and personalities. Those who werecurious ensured diversity in idea generation and thosewho were punctual with time emphasised the discipline inthe teamwork. One member of Team A shouldered theresponsibility of making plans and following themthroughout the process spontaneously. When thismember dropped out of the team during a secondcompetition, Team B encountered serious timemanagement problems. Although conflicts are seen as adisadvantage for teams (Klein & Lu, 1989), theinterviewed teams converted them into their advantages.One of the Team A and B members expressed thatactually we did not avoid conflicts among us. Toachieve a better product it is better to contradict. Evenwhen there were conflicting ideas, we easily agreedbecause we were flexible. We all shared the same aim ofdeveloping ourselves and acquiring experience.

Technological barriers (Fischer, 2004) has obstructeddesigners idea developments. The designers complainedabout their lack of knowledge and expertise in computerprograms that they needed to use to represent theirdesign ideas. One member of Team C expressed that our skills of computer programs was inadequate, this haddirected us to imagine only that which we could draw inthese programswe did not have enough time to learnthem because competitions mostly give limited time toprepare and represent a design idea

Experience enhances fluency in creativity (Guilford, 1959).In the interviewed teams team members often sharedtheir experiences willingly converting them into sharedexperiences. The atmosphere of the work made it possibleto spontaneously share information and idea. In Team Atwo members who had already been to the competition

site described the site to the others with the help ofGoogle Earth. One of them mentioned that I like theprocess of creating a design ideabrain storming... I knewthe design place very well; it was an advantage for theteam. Billur [another team member] and I were the tellerof the place. We made a presentation and described thearea on Google Earth. One of the members of Team A,who had not been to the site before mentioned thatafter they described the site, I felt like I was there. Theyused Google Earth and we went on a sightseeing tour inthe virtual environment. In this way, previous-experienceslargely shaped the teams design ideas. Previouslyacquired skills and expertise about design also helped thegroups in ensuring fluency (Guilford, 1950). Eachmember undertook a role that they were alreadyexperienced in.

Convergent and divergent thinking in the design teamsThe design teams tried hard to be critical of their ownideas emphasising divergence. However, when the teamliked one particular idea, they were drawn to fixate on theidea too quickly. One of the members of Teams A and Bexpressed this as follows: when we found a solutionfor the design problem, we were too excited. We quicklyfell in love with the idea; maybe we abstained frommaking any changes afterwards.

However, in Team B the alternating phases of convergenceand divergence helped the designers. The team used ashared board that was kept until the end of the process(figure 3). The board externalised the design ideas andkept them recorded, which helped the team producediverse ideas and find challenging solutions. The boardwas used as a discussion forum for analysis andprogramming.

In Team C, the members decided to work individually inthe beginning to increase divergence. Yet, the memberscreated almost similar design ideas because of adapting agrid base plate (figure 4 and figure 5). If we compare theteams fluencies (Guilford, 1973) to understand theircreativity and the ability to produce ideas in a short time,Team C decided to work individually, but they wereunsuccessful because of fixating on an inflexible designtool. Teams A and B worked together the whole time anddevised a shared environment that supported the sharingand recording of a variety of ideas.

As mentioned by Cropley (2006) too little andexaggerated convergent thinking could have negativeeffect on creativity. Team B complained that they spent along time with concept generation. When the team foundan idea, they were already bored with spending too much


74

RESEA

RC

H


time on idea generation and they were not willing todevelop it. However, the team members were aware oftheir problem and one of them explained that wesomehow could not passed the preliminary step ofliterature search, reading articles etcthe design came outin a trick and we loved it, but, we could not elaborate theidea and go further

Curiosity (Guilford, 1973) is necessary to achieve varietyin idea generation and generate novelty. One of themembers highlighted specifically the importance of havinga partner who was especially curious. Talking about hispartner he mentioned that He [the partner] always foundinteresting web pages, films, articles, pictures that we hadnever seen before. I dont know how he found them but Iam sure his sophistication and his inquisitiveness hadurged us all to start thinking differently

To generate a concept and adopt it (see Cross & Cross,1995; Klein & Lu, 1989), the team members useddifferent methods. Any of the members could take apersuasive leader role. In these situations the othermembers were either convinced or resistant to the idea. Insome instances the teams assigned one of their membersto be the bad guy in the group urging the others toconvince him or her. Acting the bad guy role might beused as a trigger for divergent idea generation process andthe attempt to convince bad guy might have directed themembers to converge. However, one of the members ofTeam A stated that actually, if I summarise the process,four of us found different problems and we solved themtogether.

The interviews also show that some members becomedominating in the process by either constantly questioningideas, or asking for perfectionism till the end, or imposinga personal idea on others. Questioning the design ideasoften led the teams to rationalise their design ideas. All thethree teams discussed each others ideas as if they werein a jury format, which they were familiar with throughtheir design studios. Some members were looking forways of improving and perfecting the project till the end ofthe design process. In Team C, one of the members hadalready personally decided on a design idea, which sheadvocated till the end and managed to convince theothers. The final design for this team became almostidentical with her personal idea.

ConclusionIt is reasonable to say that creativity occurs in the iterativeprocesses of convergence and divergence. The followingconclusions from this study could be drawn:


75

RESEA

RC

H


Figure 3. Shared white boardSource: Team B. (2011)

Figure 4. Grid base plate and one of the member'sdesign. Source: Team C. (2011)

Figure 5. Final design of the team after the grid baseplate removed. Source: Team C. (2011)

The shared work environment increases the teams ideageneration. Two of the teams lived in the same place untilthe submission of the projects. Team C decided to live inthe same place towards the end of the design process.

Being student and looking for originality improved theteams willingness to generate ideas divergently. Thiswillingness urged them to be inquisitive.

The members positive attitude helped them to achieveconsensus, but this was not meant they did not questionedand elaborated ideas. The teams looked for reasonableexplanations for consensus building.

Collaborative designing improved the membersknowledge and skills such as analytical and critical thinking,and computer skills.

The teams communication styles were informal becauseof the members close relationships which helped themeasily express their ideas in the design process.

This study investigated how design teams maximise thenumber of alternative ideas while keeping an eye onconsensus building. The results show two differentsituations. First Team C strategy of using a grid base planfixated the members too quickly. Second, although Teams Aand B were not formally aware of divergent idea generation,they tried to increase diversity in problem identification andsolution generation.

The teams used both convergent and divergent thinkingthroughout the design process. The teams were successfulin generating a common design idea. Teams A and Bovercome spatial barriers by working in the same places.Team C, in the first days, worked in different places, laterthey worked in the same place. Temporal barriers could notbe overcome without working in the same place. Teams Aand B used shared large boards to support asynchronous,indirect, and long-term communication. Team C used alogbook to record all stages and concepts. All the teamswere from the same architecture school so they had acommon background and understanding about architecturaldesign. Even though the teams had the same education,they had conceptual disagreements. Teams A and C solvedconceptual disagreements with persuasion. Team B did nothave conceptual problem because when the teamdeveloped a design concept, the members already liked itand did not need to discuss it any further. The teams sharedthe work according to each members knowledge abouttechnological tools.

Spatial and temporal barriers were overcome easily.Conceptual and technological barriers were harder toresolve. Conceptual disagreements usually enhanceddivergent concept generation, while technological barriersmight have limited the range of ideas.

ReferencesAshton-James, C. E., & Chartrand, T. L. . (2009). Socialcues for creativity: The impact of behavioral mimicry onconvergent and divergent thinking. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 45, 1036-1040.

Basadur, M., Pringle, P., Speranzini, G., & Bacot, M. (2000).Collaborative Problem Solving Through Creativity inProblem Definition: Expanding the Pie. Creativity andInnovation Management, 9(1), 54-76.

Cropley, A. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking.Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391-404.

Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations ofteamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies,16(2), 143-170.

Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: the story of practice.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creativecognition. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Fischer, G. (2004). Social creativity: turning barriers intoopportunities for collaborative design. Paper presented atthe Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatorydesign: Artful integration: interweaving media, materialsand practices, 152-161.

Fischer, G. (2005). Distances and diversity: sources forsocial creativity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the5th conference on Creativity & Cognition, 128-136.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,444454.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Creativity. American Psychologist,5(9), 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1973). Characteristics Of Creativity.Springfield, IL: Illinois State Office of the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, Gifted Children Section.

Klein, M., & Lu, S. C.-Y. (1989). Conflict resolution incooperative design. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering4(4), 168-180.

Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group Preference andConvergent Tendencies in Small Groups: A ContentAnalysis of Group Brainstorming Performance. CreativityResearch Journal, 12(3), 175-184. Larsson, A. (2003). Making sense of collaboration: the


76

RESEA

RC

H


challenge of thinking together in global design teams.Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supportinggroup work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 153-160.

Nemeth, C., & Rogers, J. (1996). Dissent and the searchfor information. British Journal of social Psychology, 35,67-76.

Runco, M. A. (2003). Critical creative processes. Cresskill,NJ: Hampton.

Vera, A. H., Kvan, T., West, R. L., & Lai, S. (1998). Expertise,collaboration and bandwidth. Paper presented at theProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factorsin computing systems New York, USA, 503-510.

Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration Handbook:Creating, Sustaining and Enjoying the Journey. the USA:Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

[email protected]@iyte.edu.tr


77

RESEA

RC

H


erbil, dogan, collaboration within student design teams

Documents