High Performance Collaborations

MGT 6209

High Performance Collaborations

Group writing Assignment 1

Group Members	Student ID
Chu Ling Yan (Juicy)	51946599
Kwok Ka Lai (Janet)	52059609
Leung Chun Wah	51742566
Yeung Chun Kwong (Roger)	51946483

Content

1.0    Description of the new kitchenware: Cooking Pig. 3

1.1    The new kitchenware pitch in the two exercises: 3

2.0    Situations were not helpful in developing the Cooking Pig. 4

2.1 Highly emergence of leadership. 4

2.2 Unsafe for members to offer ideas. 4

2.3 No freedom for communication. 4

3.0    Situations were helpful in developing the Cooking Pig. 4

3.1 Freedom for communication. 4

3.2 Safe for everyone to offer ideas. 5

3.3 Team work with a shared vision. 5

4.0 How the two different conditions inhibited or facilitated the product development and improvement 6

4.2 Exercise B2 inhibited or facilitated the product development 7

4.3 The Improvement in the conditions in developing the product process. 8

5.0 References. 9

1.0  Description of the new kitchenware: Cooking Pig

1.1  The new kitchenware pitch in the two exercises:

In exercise B1, we come up with the idea of that the kitchenware would make the soap with used oil. The concept was mainly for environmental protection and minimizing the waste. However, we realize the product is non-marketable because the usage of soap is small and cheap.

	Exercise B1	Exercise B2
Product name	Soap producer	Cooking Pig
Nature	Recycle for used oil	Cook healthy and easily
Selling point	Environmental protection	Health
Target market	Housewife	People on diet/ seek for healthy meal

In exercise B2, the idea improves the cooking process when we come up with idea of healthy cooking. Nowadays, there is a raise awareness of healthy meal or on diet. This product would be more marketable than that in Exercise B1. Our idea is to produce a cooker which can fry food without oil. It changes the concept that oil must be used when frying food.

Fig. 1 A diagram showing the hot air could cook inside the “Cooking Pig”

Viedo From Philips Site, Please click in watch it, the new technology just showed in 2010 IFS Berlin, Germary, and it suprise you: http://bcove.me/nrqgs3mh

According to Philips, Rapid Air Technology is the most modern technology in deep fryers. The way it works is by circulating hot air around the foods that are in the cooker. This air is circulated at very high speed which makes the temperature get as hot as 200 degrees Celsius or 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The air will heat up all of the food inside from all around at once. Thus, it is not necessary to worry about whether the food would be cooked well or not (Philips Airfryer, 2010).

2.0  Situations were not helpful in developing the Cooking Pig

2.1 Highly emergence of leadership

In Exercise B1, it is obvious that our team was being managed in an authoritative way, as “everyone must check in with the supervisor when they have an idea and the supervisor has to approve it.”  Our supervisor didn’t trust people to work out the difficulties directly with each other without having to check for permission (Catmull, 2008). We did not proactively discuss with each other. A peer culture to support one another at all level (Catmull, 2008) was absent.  This significantly affected the discussion progress and the efficiency.

2.2 Unsafe for members to offer ideas

The morale of our team was low because whenever the supervisor decides something is a good idea, he has to point out two negative aspects. His attitude suppressed our zeal to make creative ideas on improving the pitch so as to avoid being criticized. It must be safe for everyone to offer ideas (Catmull, 2008).

2.3 No freedom for communication

The atmosphere was serious as no laughing is allowed and the company believes that laughing is not conducive to productivity. We also did not talk with each other as we are not allowed without the supervisor’s permission.  This is contrary to the principle raised by Ed Catmull that everyone must have the freedom to communicate with anyone (Catmull, 2008). Without free exchange of ideas and communication, it was unexpectedly that the production of the pitch was carried out at a snail’s pace.

3.0  Situations were helpful in developing the Cooking Pig

3.1 Freedom for communication

The most efficient way to deal with numerous problems is to trust people to work out the difficulties directly with each other without having to check for permission (Catmull, 2008). People from various departments could directly approach each other to share the ideas freely. Strong communication channels allow two people to work always in the same adjacent space which induce a creative-commercial partnership (Darrell, Rigby, Kara & James, 2009). The members could discuss freely and see whether it was feasible in manufacturing or not. Trust between members made the work more efficient and creative within the realistic and commercial framework.

3.2 Safe for everyone to offer ideas

We try to stagger who goes to which viewing to ensure that there are always fresh eyes, and everyone in the company, regardless of discipline or position, gets to go at some point (Catmull, 2008). When our members believed that it was safe to voice out any opinions no matter their own position, we felt more secure to give out more innovative ideas. Partners trust each other and are willing to put each other’s interests ahead of their own is one of the characteristics of successful creative-commercial partnership (Darrell, Rigby, Kara & James, 2009). Trust induced more ideas which led to a better result of the innovation.

3.3 Team work with a shared vision

Polet stressed teamwork over one-man or one-woman shows, encouraging a “culture of interchange” among brands, geographies, and management levels (Darrell, Rigby, Kara & James, 2009). Our group composition varies in age and background which helped us to express different ideas. Getting people in different disciplines to treat one another as peers is just as important as getting people within disciplines to do so (Catmull, 2008). This helped to reduce the barriers between each other and come up with the highly technological equipment with an interesting design. A centralized team made up of both creative and commercial people would share the innovation responsibilities (Darrell, Rigby, Kara & James, 2009). Our team kept the “both-brain” strategy which adopted creative and analytic styles in order to maintain a balance in making the product pitch sounds realistic and marketable. In order to shape a group of diverse individuals into a focused, trusting, effective partnership, you will need to find common ground and develop a unified vision for success (Learning Point Associates). e focused the shared vision that we need to sell the product pitch to the CEO successfully. We trust each other that we could share responsibilities finally in order to achieve the goal.

4.0 How the two different conditions inhibited or facilitated the product development and improvement

4.1 Exercise B1 inhibited or facilitated the product development

In exercise B1, there are some factors inhibit our product development process. No laughing is allowed during the discussion which made the situation very serious, nervous, and uncomfortable. Besides, no team member is allowed to talk without the permission from the supervisor. They cannot share the new ideas, information and suggestions. A common mistake is to call a work group a team but treat it as a collection of individuals. (Hackman, 1990) There is lack of encouragement and the members would afraid of receiving the negative feedback from the supervisor. Creative companies do not punish failure because they know that false starts are a normal part of the creative process. (David. A, 2001) Therefore the members felt of deprivation and loss that they cannot trust each other in the group. Under conditions of high trust, problem solving tends to be creative and productive. Under condition of low trust, problem solving tends to be degenerative and ineffective. (Wayne. R, 1977) Hence, in exercise B1, we have not any creative idea on the product development and no clear conclusion. The members only felt that the leader would always refuse their suggestions and ideas.

4.2 Exercise B2 inhibited or facilitated the product development

 

This communication network could facilitate in our product development process. The members could enjoy the freedom to share different ideas, suggestion and information with each other. Everyone is safe to offer ideas which encourage each member to show their creative in the product development. North central regional education laboratory said that each partner possesses unique knowledge and skills that can benefit the others. As the partners plan the strategies and move forward together, there are many learning opportunities created for each other. We can learn from each other’s experience, ideas and suggestions in such kind of communication. In this kind of communication, the members can show the commitment to the team. They can behave in the best interests in team members and keep everyone informed about the progress. When you want people to produce at their peak levels, empowerment and communication are vital. (Allen. A, 2005) These behaviors are the roots of building trust between each other in the team. Therefore we create the “cooking pig” idea in this communication network and present it successfully.

Compare with Exercise B1 & B2, there is some advantages and disadvantages on both side:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

	Exercise B1 , One supervisor dominate the discussion	Exercise B2, member are equally join in the discussion
Ideas	narrow, close thinking	generated, shared, responded
Efficiency	Low	high
Pressure	High	low
Working environment	uncomfortable, boring	comfortable, fun
Focus on topic	Stay focus on topic	Easy to digress from the topic
Communication in between	indirect commutation between member	interact easily

4.3 The Improvement in the conditions in developing the product process

 

In exercise B2, we can work effectively together and freely share information without anxiety. We build trust together that members can be more comfortable during the teamwork. Sometimes, our team was lost about the direction of the discussion as some members insisted on their own opinions. Time was wasted in this type of conflict and influenced our collaborative relationship.

Effective team leaders help the group successfully weather each stage in which members confront specific issues that affect their behavior (David. A, 2001). Consequently, we suggest a leader should be included in the all-channel network for improvement. The leader could make the vision and mission for the team and allow the members to have a clear direction in the project. Besides, the leader can manage the conflict between members to increase the effectiveness of the team production. Charismatic leaders communicate high expectations for followers, and they exhibit confidence in followers’ abilities to meet these expectations (Avolio, 1999). Hence, a leader can remove the barriers of communication between the members that helps building trust together and increase the productivity. 

5.0 References

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ed Catmull. (2008, September) How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard Business Review, P. 69 & 71 

Ed Catmull (2008). How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard business Review. p.g. 64-72

Darrell K., Rigby, Kara G. & James A. (2009). Innovation in Turbulent Times. Harvard business Review. p.g. 79-86

Hackman, R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. (1998) Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams.

Journal of Computer Mediated Communications (3) 4 June Available http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

Kat Consador, (2010). Structure of Communication Organization. EHow

http://www.ehow.com/about_5449867_structure-communication-organization.html#ixzz1EBm6MX12

Kolb, David A., Osland, Joyce S., & Rubin, Irwin M. (2001). Organizational behavior: An

experiential approach (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall

Learning Point Associates. Putting the Pieces Together Comprehensive School-Linked Strategies for Children and Families,         Retrieved 19 February, 2011 form http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/area/issues/envmmnt/css/ppt/chap1.htm

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed.). London: Sage.

Philips Airfryer. (2010). Retrieved 2011 form http://www.philipsairfryer.com/philips-airfryer-how-does-it-work/

Phillips official site. (2010). Retrieved 2011 form

http://www.philips.co.uk/c/home-cooking/171533/cat/

http://bcove.me/nrqgs3mh