422
P. J. Wolff, III
makes it accessible for the novice and professional (Esckstut and Eckstut 2013). Color
wheels often include aspects of color usage throughout history such as perceptual
color, optical color, logical construction, and concepts of arbitrary/symbolic color
(Itten and Birren 1970). In a similar way, I imagined the Process Wheels as a means
to make aspects of living lab transactions—that would otherwise not be seen—to be
visible, in new ways, as artists and innovators have done throughout history (Lavy
2017).
5 Findings
The Process Wheels have been utilized as part of work with real-world projects and
included as part of presentations at regional, national and international conferences.
The tools help to retrieve multiple aspects of the living lab processes, which may be
linear or nonlinear, synchronous or a-synchronous, in nature. Some teams indicated
that the tools helped to “facilitate communication with common terms,” while others
indicated that the tools appeared to help “bridge the communication gap between
diverse stakeholders who may have different native languages, cultures, and varying
degrees of participation.”
Previous scholarship has found that reduced mutual knowledge among team members can often lead to conflict (Cramton 2001), and the Process Wheels appear to fill
a need among living lab team members to share information. The tools proved useful
for managing daily tasks for project managers who must work across boundaries
attributed to different agendas and schedules (operational vs. academic), different
cultures and languages, and organizational structures (vertical vs. horizontal), while
sharing an objective of delivering results and meeting performance targets. Given that
the tools increase interactivity, they also impact the degree of emotional connection
people have with each other, which could improve team dynamics and outcomes
(Neeley 2015). This study takes a step forward by asking the question, How can
the project management process be utilized as a team-building activity and improve
communications among members who may or may not be co-located?
The top image illustrates the Teaming Wheel (Fig. 1):
Inner Ring (#1) identifies ideation strategies, based loosely on design-thinking principles, (Platner 2010) and includes the following nonlinear steps: (a) Intake/Define
the Problem, (b) Collaborate, (c) Digest, (d) Prototype, (e) Connect/Reconnect, (f)
Testing/Outcomes.
Ring #2 illustrates common steps in the research process (Ravitch and Riggan 2012)
that are often linear: (a) Literature Review, (b) Research Questions, (c) Methodology,
(d) Data Collection, (e) Findings.
Ring #3 illustrates priority filters that are considerations for determining which
research can be supported: (a) Behavioral Modification, (b) Demonstration, (c) Policy, (d) Scales of Impact, (e) Community Building, (f) Shared Resources, (g) Operations, (h) Institutional Goals, (i) Resilient Technology.
P. J. Wolff, III
makes it accessible for the novice and professional (Esckstut and Eckstut 2013). Color
wheels often include aspects of color usage throughout history such as perceptual
color, optical color, logical construction, and concepts of arbitrary/symbolic color
(Itten and Birren 1970). In a similar way, I imagined the Process Wheels as a means
to make aspects of living lab transactions—that would otherwise not be seen—to be
visible, in new ways, as artists and innovators have done throughout history (Lavy
2017).
5 Findings
The Process Wheels have been utilized as part of work with real-world projects and
included as part of presentations at regional, national and international conferences.
The tools help to retrieve multiple aspects of the living lab processes, which may be
linear or nonlinear, synchronous or a-synchronous, in nature. Some teams indicated
that the tools helped to “facilitate communication with common terms,” while others
indicated that the tools appeared to help “bridge the communication gap between
diverse stakeholders who may have different native languages, cultures, and varying
degrees of participation.”
Previous scholarship has found that reduced mutual knowledge among team members can often lead to conflict (Cramton 2001), and the Process Wheels appear to fill
a need among living lab team members to share information. The tools proved useful
for managing daily tasks for project managers who must work across boundaries
attributed to different agendas and schedules (operational vs. academic), different
cultures and languages, and organizational structures (vertical vs. horizontal), while
sharing an objective of delivering results and meeting performance targets. Given that
the tools increase interactivity, they also impact the degree of emotional connection
people have with each other, which could improve team dynamics and outcomes
(Neeley 2015). This study takes a step forward by asking the question, How can
the project management process be utilized as a team-building activity and improve
communications among members who may or may not be co-located?
The top image illustrates the Teaming Wheel (Fig. 1):
Inner Ring (#1) identifies ideation strategies, based loosely on design-thinking principles, (Platner 2010) and includes the following nonlinear steps: (a) Intake/Define
the Problem, (b) Collaborate, (c) Digest, (d) Prototype, (e) Connect/Reconnect, (f)
Testing/Outcomes.
Ring #2 illustrates common steps in the research process (Ravitch and Riggan 2012)
that are often linear: (a) Literature Review, (b) Research Questions, (c) Methodology,
(d) Data Collection, (e) Findings.
Ring #3 illustrates priority filters that are considerations for determining which
research can be supported: (a) Behavioral Modification, (b) Demonstration, (c) Policy, (d) Scales of Impact, (e) Community Building, (f) Shared Resources, (g) Operations, (h) Institutional Goals, (i) Resilient Technology.