Twomey Lamb, Caroline

DSpace@MIT

For more information, please visit: http://seari.mit.eduCollaborative Systems Thinking: Identifying the enablers and barriers of higher-level systems thinking in aerospace engineering teamsCaroline Twomey Lamb, PhD in Aero/Astro (expected in 2009)Committee: Prof. Deborah Nightingale, chair; Prof. Annalisa Weigel; Dr. Donna RhodesBiographyCaroline Twomey Lamb is pursuing her doctorate through the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics.  Caroline received her S.B and S.M from MIT in 2003 and 2005 respectively.  Her educational philosophy has been to construct a broad tool box of skills and experiences.  Upon graduation, Caroline plan to work in the industry as either a design or test engineer.  © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyYourPictureRelated PublicationsD.H. Rhodes, C.T. Lamb and D.J. Nightingale (2008). “Empirical Research on Systems Thinking and Practice in the Engineering Enterprise”, IEEE International Systems Conference, Montreal, CanadaC.T. Lamb and D.H. Rhodes (2008). “Collaborative Systems Thinking Research: Exploring systems thinking within teams”, INCOSE International Symposium, Utrecht, NetherlandsC.T. Lamb and D.H. Rhodes (2009). “Collaborative Systems Thinking: Case study research investigating enablers of team-level systems thinking” AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida Transactive Memory (Wegner 1985)1. Transactive memory is a concept that facilitates understanding of group thinking2. Transactive memory is the combination of individual memory systems and the communications (or transactions) between individuals3. Individuals with complementary knowledge synthesize new knowledge by interactingTransactive e ory ( egner 1985)1. Transactive memory is a concept that facilitates understanding of group thinking2. Transactive memory is the combination of individual memory systems and the communications (or transactions) between individuals3. Individuals with complementary knowledge synthesize new knowledge by interactingTheorySystems Thinking (Davidz 2006)Systems thinking is utilizing modal elements to consider the componential, relational, contextual, and dynamic elements of the systemof interest.Syste s Thinking (Davidz 2006)Syste s thinking is utilizing odal ele ents to consider the co ponential, relational, contextual, and dyna ic ele ents of the systeof interest.Design Thinking (Dym et al 2005)1. Design is a social process2. Designers think and communicate using  design languages (e.g. sketching, modeling, prototyping)3.Groups utilize divergent and convergent thinking to explore options and choose between alternativesDesign Thinking (Dy et al 2005)1. Design is a social process2. Designers think and communicate using  design languages (e.g. sketching, modeling, prototyping)3.Groups utilize divergent and convergent thinking to explore options and choose between alternativesCase Study InsightsResearch Design ResultsSystems thinking development takes time and experience. Why then, study team-level systems thinking?Expected Outcomes1. An operational definition of collaborative systems thinking2. Heuristics for enabling collaborative systems thinking3. Descriptive theory of collaborative systems thinking4. Data for improving workforce development initiativesFuture Work1. Tracking members of ‘middle tier’ to measure effectiveness of participation for systems skill            development 2. Longitudinal study to explore relationships rlsbetween final system performance andand collaborative system thinking in systemsarchitecture teamsMotivationIntegrated Design Practices: Integrated Product Development (IPD) improves design through early integration of multiple disciplines.  IPD is predicated on teams of engineers working closely together on systems-level issues. Workforce Development: It is hoped that team-level systems thinking will provide the supportive environment and career guidance required to develop good systems thinking engineers. Demographics: 50% of the aerospace workforce, those with the greatest levels of experience, are eligible to retire by 2013.Manned Fighter Program Starts by Decade (Murman et al 2002)Manned Spacecraft Program Starts by Decade (Neal 1995)Program Trends:The aerospace industry has fewer (larger and longer) programs than 50 years ago.  This results in fewer opportunities to gain systems experience.Component ComplexityEmergenceInterrelationshipsContext WholesCollaborative systems thinkingis a transaction based manifestationof Davidz’s definition of systems thinking.Individuals with unique knowledge synthesize a systems perspectivethrough interacting as a team.TimeThis research follows grounded theory methods and uses surveys and interviews to collect data on the role of culture, process, and team composition in collaborative systems thinking. Literature Review Case StudiesPilot InterviewsAnalysis & SynthesisCollaborative Systems ThinkingSystems EngineeringSystems ThinkingGood DesignProcessDesign ThinkingCultureOrganizational CultureEngineering CulturePersonality Type Thinking Preferencesin EngineeringLeadershipTeamsTeam CompositionWork Design for TeamsTeam CognitionTransactiveMemoryEnablers ofCreativityTeam RolesEngineering BehaviorsSystemsEngineeringProcessThe literature review identified concepts and theories related to collaborative systems thinking.Pilot interviews were used to validate these initial ideas and directionsFifteen formal case studies and five abbreviated cases focus are used to collect grounded data. Team DiversityTeam ExperienceTeam EnvironmentStrong Team CognitionCollaborative Systems Thinking (evaluated through 1st and 3rd person assessments)Well Designed (and utilized)Technical ProcessTeam-level systems thinking is influenced by team culture and technical processTeam Experience Years012345678<5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 >40Years of ExperienceNumber of IndividualsTeam Experience Years024681012141618Number of IndividualsAircraft (Hardware)Spacecraft (Hardware)Government Commercial PrivateConceptual Design; Small ProgramDetailed Design; Large ProgramCustomerMini CaseAverage team experience is not an indicator of collaborative systems thinking:Teams with <7 years of average experience behave similarly to those with >20 years of experienceAn internally consistent view of decision making is an enabler of collaborative systems thinkingTeams with higher self-reported and observe CST have more consistently shared views of how decision are madeHigh collaborative systems thinking team members identify themselves as team players who are reliable performers.  Lower systems thinking teams’ members rate themselves relatively higher in detail orientation and coordinationCase study sample includes a wide variety of aerospace program types and sizesSystems thinkingteams have three tiers1) Strong systemsleadership2) Developing systems professionals with functional backgrounds3)   Functional specialistsSyste s thinkingtea s have three tiers1) Strong systemsleadership2) Developing systems professionals with functional backgrounds3)   Functional specialistsSystems thinking teams are diverse• Past experience• Variety of earned degrees• Mix of team roles• Unique outside interestsTeam leaders respect the individuality of team members• Treat each as unique rather than   addressing the minimum common abilitiesSyste s thinking tea s are diverse• Past experience• Variety of earned degrees• Mix of team roles• Unique outside interestsTea  leaders respect the individuality of tea  e bers• Treat each as unique rather than   addressing the minimum common abilitiesSystems and design processes are recognized, but not necessarily used• Experienced systems professionals rely on past experience• Less experienced teams use discussion of process as means to develop documentation, learn• Both groups identify with following spirit if not rule of processSyste s and design processes are recognized, but not necessarily used• Experienced systems professionals rely on past experience• Less experienced teams use discussion of process as means to develop documentation, learn• Both groups identify with following spirit if not rule of processUnderstanding team-level systems thinking.A possible tool for workforce development.Expected Outcomes and Future WorkSystems thinking team members are selected for their social skills as much as their technical skillsStrong interpersonal skillsTechnical excellenceSystems awareness / curiosity<5         5-10      10-15    15-20     20-25     25-30    30-35   35-40     >40Years of ExperienceNumber of Team MembersNumber of Team Members

Collaborative Systems Thinking: Identifying the Enablers and Barriers of Higher-level Systems Thinking in Aerospace Engineering Teams

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/83933/1/SRP_ResSummit09_Lamb-SEAri_10-08.pdf

Collaborative Systems Thinking: Identifying the Enablers and Barriers of Higher-level Systems Thinking in Aerospace Engineering Teams

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace@MIT