Case Story: Flash meeting Design Collaboration

Summary
Group / workshop	Making stuff together	Status	seed
Project details...

Situation

What was the setting in which this case study occurred?

A design activity over a period of 6 weeks using Flashmeeting, a synchronous communication software comprising video chat, text chat, voting whiteboard. Initially 6 students and 3 tutors plus 3 “observers” enrolled in the experiment. The experiment also used the OpenLearn Lab platform. Design brief, project outline and news board discussions were accessed and stored there.

Task

What was the problem to be solved, or the intended effect?

Students were ask to gather some data on domestic energy use, new and emerging lifestyles and renewable energy technologies in order for you to be in a position to make a proposal to design a specific domestic product. Thus your brief is partly to design your design brief - and then to set about resolving it!
Deliverables were a 200 word explanation of the proposed design outlining its key features and identifying how it addresses the requirements you have identified. A graphic presentation of the proposed design. As well as communicating the overall concept this graphic presentation might reveal, for instance, how the product works, or highlight any advantages to the user.
Group discussions were held for one hour once a week over 6 weeks. Students and tutors did some independent research on the topic to present it to the group n the following meeting.

Actions

What was done to fulfil the task?

A project outline was set up, and meetings were scheduled:
Technical familiarization and FM help
* Technical familiarization and FM help Resource
* Notes from this meeting Resource

Session 1: The Design Brief
* Session 1: The Design Brief and Deliverables Resource
* Notes from this meeting Resource

Session 2: Understanding the Market and Users
* Session 2: Understanding the Market and Users Resource

Session 3: A Design Specification
* Session 3: A Design Specification Resource

Session 4: Concept Generation
* Session 4: Concept Generation Resource

Session 5: Embodiment and Detail Design
* Session 5: Embodiment and Detail Design Resource

Final Debriefing
• Final Debriefing

Results

What happened? Was is a success? What contributed to the outcomes?

• The first meeting was scheduled to familiarize the tutors with the technology
  - The second meeting was scheduled to familiarize the students with the technology
  - In this meeting ice-break exercise and introductions to all members were missed out
  - This was made up for in the first session where the design brief was discussed.
  - The second meeting an introduction to the design brief and the collaborators was done, and a discussion about first accusations around the topic was initiated by Steve (moderator). One comment in the course of the meeting was interesting: Steve asked what the students thought they would need to do to next time, none really answered and one students said that he would do whatever Steve said, because he is the team leader. And in corporate settings, I guess, there is always a team leader set up and not negotiated. I wonder how a session with those students without tutors would go. One student emerged already as a natural leader; he might take the lead in such a situation. The parallels to global resolution and structured chat as my design patterns are interesting! Whenever a tutor is part of the meeting there is a structure given to interact. Students expect structure and guidance! Hence when a teacher is not around other structures structure interaction.
  - The third meeting was very instable. Students haven’t done much. Sam did not wanted to take the lead again, Sam female had a sound problem, same as in previous session. Carol was feeling ill like me and did not contribute. Julia could not contribute because she felt she had not enough knowledge of the domain. This lead to a down phase when john, one tutor pushed for developing a brief based on very little facts and knowledge. Students felt they could not make informed decisions. Sam and Sam had some insights and made an interesting proposal of lighting streets when a car approaches. The session nevertheless seemed superficial. Flash meeting does not support knowledge acquisition of individuals only sharing and generation of ideas after a certain amount of research was done before. This was missing here. A design brief beginning was negotiated on the whiteboard. Everyone agreed to look into this and refine the brief on his or her own.
  - In the fourth meeting only 2 students, 2 tutors and myself were present. Our task was to flash out the design brief. Jenny was the leader of the session. One observation was quite interesting: Jenny was actually very structured in leading the meeting and communicated the sense of doing what we were doing well. Nevertheless, the session got stuck often again due to missing student input, excitement and sense of direction. We used the white board to arrange the brief. Allowing everyone to insert text simultaneously proved to be working well as a brain writing exercise. There was some discussion to which extend the brief should capture the proposed product in our heads or leave it open… Since there was not much research done, again not much could be communicated. However, a design brief was assembled, meaning we are 2 sessions behind the schedule with this accomplishment. Peter commented that this experiment setting might be quite superficial.
  - I missed the fifth meeting because I was sick.
  - The sixth meeting, Steve came back from holiday and took over the team lead. There was only one student left. Tutors took on students roles. His approach was very structured and rather “pushy”. He suggested a discussion around a design concept, which was developed last time. He guided everyone through the stages of the concept and ask for details on it. The discussion was lively and the concept developed and gained profundity.
  - Over the sessions, it became more apparent that the schedule was difficult to keep, and the students were not that happy with it.
  - Students were also unhappy with the openness of the task. They rather expected a clear set design brief.

Lessons Learned

What did you learn from the experience?

Next time I will make sure:

- A project leader is always present at every meeting
- Other tutors are trained better for this role.
- Icebreaker and introduction sessions are conducted.
- Students will commit to on hour more each week for research outside the flashmeeting to present some results.
- Design brief should maybe be less open.

Students felt that flashmeeting is very good to discuss initial ideas and brainstorm, but offers less support when concrete design implementations have to be done. The whiteboard is more scribble tool than a drafting tool.

Licensing

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.