Project Team Dynamics and Cognitive Style

Problem-solving styles and interpersonal dynamics of project teams are often critical factors for a team to function effectively. To study problem-solving styles and track intra-team interactions, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) was used to determine the cognitive styles of engineering and management students in Bucknell’s Institute for Leadership in Technology and Management (ILTM). KAI scores allowed interpretation and characterization of data from student journaling assignments that recorded observations about project team members’ abilities to work and communicate with each other. KAI results show correlations with both positive and negative aspects of project team experiences. The results indicate potential sources of conflicts in project teams comprised of mature individuals working in a corporate environment. Introduction Within Bucknell University’s ILTM, the faculty traditionally assemble student project teams to maximize heterogeneity in gender, major, and grade point average (GPA). The heterogeneity not only balances the capabilities and skill sets of the teams, but also forces students to work with others who may have different approaches to problem solving. Previous experience shows that although the teams are designed to be as similar as possible, some teams inevitably function better than others, and often at least one team suffers significant problems with team dynamics. To investigate and establish the functional heterogeneity (or homogeneity) of the teams, cognitive style theory and the KAI were introduced into the ILTM on-campus program in the summer of 2001. Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory is based on the assumption that individual cognitive differences in approaches to problem solving produce distinctive patterns of behavior and that the differences can be identified by a relatively simple psychological instrument. Kirton’s work indicates that significant differences (20 points or more in KAI scores) in problem-solving styles of project team members can lead to serious difficulties in team members’ functioning, communication, and collaboration. By studying engineering and management students in the ILTM program, this investigation seeks to determine whether KAI scores can be used to develop correlations and draw conclusions about project team dynamics. This was accomplished by determining the KAI scores of the students and faculty advisors, then tracking the progress of the project teams through student journal entries and faculty observations. While the results are clearly applicable to student project teams, our results, as well as those previously reported on project team dynamics (Foxall, 1986; Hammerschmidt, 1996; Keller, 1986; Schroder, 1994), suggest that our conclusions can be applied to a broad range of corporate, engineering, and managerial teams. The contributions of the present study are that it focuses on integrated teams of future engineers and managers, evaluates interactions of team members through journal entries, and closely ties KAI scores to observed functional problems. We give an overview of the 2001 ILTM program with descriptions of the student project teams, a brief summary of cognitive style theory, and the approach to cognitive style developed by Dr. Michael J. Kirton. Specific data will be presented, including KAI score distributions and sample anonymous journal entries. Results indicate that KAI scores help with understanding and appreciating problem-solving strategies of others, and predict trouble spots within project teams. About the Authors Keith W. Buffinton is a professor of mechanical engineering at Bucknell University. He earned his BSME from Tufts University and his MS and PhD from Stanford University. His primary interests are in the modeling, dynamics, and control of flexible mechanisms, principally robots, with secondary interests in sports engineering and engineering management education. Kathryn W. Jablokow is an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Pennsylvania State University, School for Graduate Professional Studies. She received her BS, MS, and PhD in electrical engineering from Ohio State University. She currently teaches and conducts research in robotics, system dynamics and control, and creativity. Kathleen A. Martin is the assistant director of institutional research at Bucknell University. She earned her doctorate in physical education with a specialization in sport psychology from Springfield College. Her primary research interests are team and coaching staff cohesion and mentoring students and faculty in the process of conducting research. She also serves as a sport psychology consultant and statistical consultant. Contact: Keith W. Buffinton, Bucknell University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lewisburg, PA 17837; phone: 570-577-1581; fax: 570-577-7281; [email protected] (ILTM information) Kathryn W. Jablokow, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Penn State Great Valley, 30 East Swedesford Rd., Malvern, PA 19355; phone: 610-648-3372; fax: 610-889-1334; [email protected] (KAI information) Refereed case study. Accepted by Ted Eschenbach, Founding Editor. ILTM Program Background and Team Descriptions Bucknell’s ILTM, founded in 1991 as part of the Lauren P. Breakiron Technology and Management Fund, provides “an integrated academic program to address the challenges of technological change and the changing global economy.” The ILTM is a two-summer, intensive experience for students majoring in one of the engineering programs at Bucknell (chemical, civil and environmental, computer, electrical, or mechanical) or in management or accounting. The goal is to provide Bucknell students with a learning experience that bridges the disciplines of engineering and management. The program combines on-campus course and project work for students following their sophomore year with an off-campus internship for continuing ILTM students following their junior year. The on-campus component was first offered in 1993. Entry into the ILTM is by application and limited to 20 students. The program brings together 20 of the best, most motivated juniors in engineering and management. The curriculum, developed each year by four core faculty, offers a unique interdisciplinary combination of topics taught by the core faculty, adjunct faculty, and outside speakers, including four day-long sessions with executives-in-residence. The content is intentionally ambitious with correspondingly high expectations of the students. Overview of 2001 Program. For the summer of 2001, the 20 students enrolled in the program consisted of nine engineering majors (two chemical, one civil and environmental, one computer, one electrical, and four mechanical), eight management, and three accounting majors. The students were selected based on application essays on leadership, the central themes of the ILTM program, future goals, and their GPAs. The nine females and 11 males selected had GPAs ranging from 3.00 to 3.91, with a mean of 3.51. The curriculum for the summer of 2001 was typical, consisting of six weeks of classes, field trips, and project work, with at least six hours of class per day (occasionally more). Students also had reading, homework, and presentation assignments to be completed during the evenings. Approximately three hours per week were set aside for project work, and the sixth week was dedicated to project report completion and presentation. An example of the range of activities is shown in Exhibit 1. This shows the schedule of classes and field trips for week 2 of the 2001 program. Students participated in classes from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily, with some evening sessions. The intensity of the program is one important contributor to the development rate and frequency of occurrence of issues with team dynamics. Project Descriptions. Four companies sponsored the 2001 ILTM on-campus projects: G.E. Industrial Systems of Plainville, Connecticut; Corning of Corning, New York; Brodart Contract Furniture Division of McElhatten, Pennsylvania; and IBM Microelectronics Division of East Fishkill, New York. Each project team was assigned to one of the project sponsors, as well as to a core faculty advisor. Corporate liaisons were identified at each company. The 2001 problem statements are summarized below: ¡ G.E. Industrial Systems (GEIS): Provide a recommendation of short-term and long-term strategies to improve services provided by GEIS to customers by examining GEIS’s current business model of providing products to utilities customers, benchmarking major competitors’ business models, researching the needs of GEIS customers, and investigating current trends and forecasts for several types of e-business. ¡ Corning: Determine the marketing and manufacturing resources investment Corning should make in the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) emission control technology for success in the global air pollution market. ¡ Brodart Contract Furniture Division: Examine and analyze manufacturing processes at Brodart’s custom library furniture production facilities to make recommendations for ongoing reengineering efforts. ¡ IBM Microelectronics Division: Assess the market Engineering Management Journal Vol. 14 No. 3 September 2002 26 Exhibit 1. Week 2 of ILTM program syllabus (2001)