studies supporting the value of collaborators?

Some good stuff came out last year on Google's efforts to understand what makes teams effective. There is a quick take on this from Quartz, and a detailed report in the NYTimes: "What  Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team." It's all about creating an environment of psychological safety, it seems.

There’s relevant research suggesting that the integrative design process (which relies on collaboration, especially among leaders) can save 10% in the schedule on average. Collaboration could be the difference between profitability and no profitability. I’d have to hunt for the source. Fro

Tristan - For an alternate perspective, you might check out this book:  Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain    A head of school referenced this book when we were designing spaces primarily for collaborative learning environments over spaces for independent exploration.  It looks at both the collaborative and independent idea creation that leads to success saying that there is still high value in the independent genius that you cannot get from a collaborative approach.  It might have some good references to both sides of the argument.    Brian Feagans RATCLIFF Sent from my iPhone INDIA: +91 9008.433.011 From US: +1 510.798.6970 US: +1 510.944.8260

What a great thread! While at Greenbuild, a group of us visited MIT Multimedia Lab and MIT Architecture. MIT Multimedia Lab follows a antidisciplinary approach, gathering their labs around core research areas/topics rather than disciplines. Architects and urban planners may work side by side with creative writers, musicians, visual artists, programmers, etc... to "embolden unconventional mixing and matching of seemingly disparate research areas." While not as "disruptive", studios at MIT Architecture are required to seek funding with multiple departments represented. All of this is again centered on a belief of creative learning through diversity.

It sounds like we need to conduct a study!   Another thought from my Director of Operations on generational trends:  I don’t know about formal studies with the link for collaboration and success, but I do know that generally, people who fall into the “older Millennial” category of 1980-1987 tend to be extra collaborative, and “young Millennials” (1988-1996) tend to be very collaborative.  BUT THEN, Gen Edgers (1996-??) tend to be a little less collaborative as a whole.  So I think we’ll see a continued increased collaboration trend in the next decade, but then see that decrease to some extent. Granted, industry fields are always going to be different, and as younger generations gain more work experience, some of their behavioral habits will change.

Also to Amber's suggestion of Leith's work- Leith may also have an idea of some of the most collaborative and least collaborative organizations, which you could then compare. Not very scientifically rigorous, but perhaps some good anecdotal evidence.

I have found it intriguing that the new-ish California state curriculum requires collaboration in the classroom. It's applied differently across subjects, but in most classes, they collaborate daily. I don't know what research provides the basis of this change in the curriculum, and a quick search didn't turn up any immediate references, but I'd like to think that it's based on data, and presumably about the outcomes of success later in life [OK, it's the government, who knows]. Just a thought that may lead to something. 

Some observations on collaboration in the design profession: Maybe Lance’s comment about collaboration as the “difference between profitability and no profitability” could be the “the difference between profit and profanity” (!) A lot of ink has been spilled on collaboration in the software industry, but very little in the (architectural) design world. I’ll go out on a limb and infer that Software engineers:

1. Don’t get much training or practice in the “soft skills” of communication, collaboration, team work;
2. May not have those skills near the top of their Strengths Finder list;
3. May be more motivated by the individual technical challenges and the desire to excel in what they may see (or been trained to see) as a competitive environment;
4. May be one of the least gender-balanced professions.

Thus, managing teams and fostering collaboration was recognized as a deal-breaker in the Darwinian world of start-ups and the profitability of many companies. Authors had a receptive audience and huge demand.    I met an architect turned professor who taught in a...business school. He taught a "design studio" course with all MBA students to expose them to the design process and prepare them for managing projects with a design component - whether architectural, digital, advertising, etc). The MBA students had a fairly easy time working in a group and collaborating - unlike most architecture student. We discussed the likelihood that the MBA students:  

1. May get more practice/ training/ feedback on collaboration, communication, and managing teams;  
2. May have personality types more predisposed to group problem solving;
3. Had little artistic/aesthetic “skin in the game” – personal expression, demonstrating design skill, building a portfolio was not anyone’s agenda;
4. Have shifted to a more gender-balanced mix faster than some/many professions.

Which group have architects typically resembled? Which firms are charting a different course? Who heard “soft skills” mentioned in school? How many architects even read books without pictures? (Fascinating topic - glad to be back in the SDL circles after some time away!)