RESEARCH OVERVIEW Collaborative Systems Thinking: The role of culture and process in supporting higher level systems thinking

Transcription

1 RESEARCH OVERVIEW Collaborative Systems Thinking: The role of culture and process in supporting higher level systems thinking Caroline Twomey Lamb, Doctoral Research Assistant October 16, 2007 Committee: D. Nightingale (Chair), D. Rhodes, and A. Weigel

2 Researcher s Background Caroline Twomey Lamb Research Interests Design theory/systems engineering Social component of engineering complex systems Impact of process standardization on systems thinking Education 3 rd year doctoral student, Aero/Astro 08 (exp.) S.M. Aerospace Engineering (MIT 05) S.B. Aerospace Engineering (MIT 03) Professional Experience Pratt and Whitney Composites fabrication/testing for DARPA contract Wind tunnel testing seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2

3 Motivation Engineering is a socio-technical activity Historic emphasis on technical side Increasing systems complexity No one individual can possess necessary competencies Move to team as fundamental work unit Demographics crisis within engineering Large anticipated loss of skilled engineers in near future 70% of system level design knowledge undocumented Longer development cycles Fewer program starts Process standardization to codify design practices and knowledge Desire to understand how systems thinking manifests within engineering teams seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3

4 Research Summary Project Title: Collaborative Systems Thinking: The role of culture and process in supporting higher level systems thinking Sponsor: National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship/Lean Aerospace Initiative Goal: Identify organizational culture and process-based enablers and barriers to collaborative systems thinking within the aerospace industry Approach: Exploratory research anchored by a series of case studies looking at the enablers and barriers to engineering teams in the aerospace industry developing collaborative systems thinking seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4

5 Research Goal To advance understanding of how engineer s develop systems thinking skills by exploring the concept at the team level Engineering Demographics in the US Manned Fighter Programs by Decade seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5

6 In other words Dream Airplanes by C. W. Miller seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6

7 Key Challenges Divergent definitions of systems thinking within engineering community No universally accepted definition of systems thinking within engineering community Following definition developed by Dr. Heidi Davidz and grounded in 200+ interviews Engaging teams and management in addressing social component of engineering Dealing with soft issues in engineering design Historically topics engineers to not value/are not comfortable discussing Identifying ways to improve process implementation towards fostering systems thinking seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7

8 Research Questions 1. What is collaborative systems thinking? a) What is team thinking? b) What does systems thinking look like at the team level 2. What are the enablers or barriers to collaborative systems thinking? a) How might an organization s culture, engineering culture, or team sub-culture impact team-level systems thinking? b) How do processes, meant to support shared practices, promote or deter shared conceptualizations of the system? 3. What synergies or tensions between process and culture contribute to collaborative systems thinking? seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8

9 What is team thinking? Collaborative Systems Thinking (1) Thinking is purposeful, reasoned and goal-directed action towards the solving of problems (Agkun and Lynn, 2005) Elements of thinking Problem exploration Evaluation of alternatives Decision Making Team thinking is the human equivalent of parallel processing (Entin et.al., 2004) Emerges from intersection of individual team members thinking, behavior and team processes Team thinking is greater than the sum of individuals thinking Communication is key to team thinking Brainstorming, team norms, and processes enable this communication seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9

10 What is systems thinking? Collaborative Systems Thinking (2) Systems thinking is is utilizing modal elements to consider the componential, relational, contextual, and dynamic elements of the system of interest (Davidz, 2006) What is collaborative systems thinking? Team Composition Pilot Interviews Design Theory Team Thinking Collaborative systems thinking is is an emergent behavior of teams resulting from the interactions of team members and utilizing a variety of thinking styles, design processes, tools, and languages to consider systems attributes, interrelationships, context and dynamics towards executing systems design. seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10

11 Culture and Standard Process The impact of culture and process on team performance a repetitive theme in literature Defining leverage points will help in observing tensions and synergies Process is must easier to change than culture Alignment creates reinforcing loop Misalignment produces conflicting stimuli and dysfunctional behavior Culture Undocumented team norms Espoused beliefs Underlying assumptions Social networks Standardized Process Documented tasks and methods Vision statements Strategy for standardization Process flow maps, org-charts seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 11

12 Experimental Method Literature Search Review Past Relevant Cases Pilot Interviews Data Analysis Theory Generation and Idea Sharing Theory Synthesis Coding, statistical analysis, MS Excel Data Sources Case Studies Experimental Design Case? α Observe team members Primary Documentation Interviews Identify potential case opportunities Work with point of of contact Interview engineering team members Case β Case γ Case δ Collect survey data Case? ε Observations Surveys Case? ζ seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 12

13 Initial Results Effective communication is necessary Good communication uses the multiple language of design (sketches, equations, models, simulations, etc) Evidence supports role of information sketching in improving early communication and improving final design Use of multiple thinking styles: convergent and divergent As problem solvers, engineers excel at convergent thinking Leaves goal space only partially explored, missed opportunities improve design Divergent thinking predicated on culture that promotes early critical discussion without fear of criticism Product orientation solidifies team objectives Clear goals enable better communication and teamwork Exciting, motivating goals, get people to think and act outside of the box Engineering culture is its own worst enemy Engineering archetypes affirm individuals, technology considerations over social, and procrastination Norms limit communication and result in schedule pressure Culture and process are important elements in CST: seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 13

14 Anticipated Contributions Expected Outcomes: Operationalized definition of collaborative systems thinking List of enablers and barriers to collaborative systems thinking Broader Impact: Provide organizations with information that facilitate positive interventions in process and shaping culture to promote systems thinking development in the workforce Knowledge Deployment: Paper at 2008 Conference on SE Research (CSER) INCOSE 2008 Paper Series of journal papers on issues in collaborative engineering and systems thinking Targeted briefings for participating organizations seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14

15 Further Information C. Lamb and D. Rhodes, Promoting Systems Thinking Through Alignment of Culture and Process: Initial Results, CSER Conference, March 2007 C. Lamb and D. Rhodes, Standardized Process as a Tool for High Level Systems Thinking, INCOSE 2007, June 2007 seari.mit.edu 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 15