1. Betsy Merck
b e t s y @ m e r c k c o n s u l t i n g . c o m
m a n d a n a g r o u p . c o m
5 1 0 - 6 6 3 - 1 7 7 9
S O C I O T E C H N I C A L S Y S T E M S R O U N D T A B L E
N A T I O N A L S C I E N C E F O U N D A T I O N G R A N T
How Virtual is Virtual:
Designing for Distributed Work
in Innovation
Supported by NSF-VOSS Award #0943237

2. Desired
Outcomes
for this
Session
Through dialogue and exercises, we
have the opportunity to …
1. Develop a shared understanding of the
implications of virtuality on key
conversations across the innovation
continuum
2. Consider how ‘fixes’ differ depending on the
degree of uncertainty
3. Explore the value of coordination
mechanisms employed differently across
the innovation continuum
4. Consider the implications for leadership of
virtual teams
5. Contribute to a growing body of research on
the impact of virtuality on key conversations
across the innovation continuum
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237

3. Three Research Sites
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Caltech- Orchid Project: fundamental research, R1
 Optical Radiation Cooling and Heating in Integrated Devices
 Tightly-Linked Collaboration for Design of Experiments & Device Fabrication among Laboratories
using 3 Technology platforms
 Pasadena, Switzerland and Austria
 Major challenge: creative research and design and knowledge generation in a complex virtual
setting
 NACC: a virtual R&D eco-system, D2- D4
 Comprised of 29 NIA-funded Alzheimers Disease Centers (ADCs) and the National Alzheimers
Coordinating Center Center (NACC)
 Major challenge: Create Uniform Data Set agreeing upon and compiling data from the 29
different centers as the basis of research
 LVG: a large video game developer, D3-D4
 Core team with distributed vendors in Philippines, China, India, Switzerland,
North America and across the parking lot
 Major challenge: Cost effective game development work with high quality and timeliness
completed at a distance for art production, engineering and testing
April 2012

4. Grant
Back-
ground
 University of Illinois and STS
Roundtable
 Seven member team
 3 year grant
 Supported by NSF-VOSS Award #0943237
 In final year of the grant
 Central Research Question:
How do virtual modes of
communication influence the
quality of deliberations (key
conversations) at various stages of
the innovation process?
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237

5. Six Stages of the Innovation Continuum
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
Pure
Research
Work
Open Project
Don t know what
we are looking for
Don t know how
to carry out the
research
Applied
Research
Work
Semi- Open
Project
Don t know what
(i.e. end state or
objective)
Know how to
carry out the
research
Exploratory
Development
Work
Semi- Closed
Project
Know what
Don t know how
to achieve it
Advanced
Development
Work
Semi- Closed
Project
Know what
Don t know how
in detail to
achieve it
Start-Up
(pilot plants,
beta testing)
Development
Work
Closed Project
Know what
Know how to
achieve it
conceptually
Scale-Up
(volume & costs)
Development
Work
Closed Project
Know what
Know how to
achieve it
operationally
R
1
R
2
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
4
April 2012

6. The Innovation Continuum
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
R1 D4
Drive Problem Solving
Shape and
Reinforce
Converge Convey
Standardization
Rules Based
Mutual
Adjustment
Peer-to-Peer Hierarchical
Exploration Prescriptive
Uncertainty
Mystery Heuristic Algorithm
Certainty

7. Key Conversations in Virtual Art Production
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
Scoping
Vendors
Vendor
Selection
Defining &
Estimating
Project Work
Pre-Test &
Trial Run
Detailed
Documentation
& Requirements
Art Assets
Deliveries
Initial
Testing of
Assets
Debugging Re-Negotiating
Project Work
Contract
Negotiation
Critiques
Critiques

8. Key Conversations/Deliberations:
Definition and Elements
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Key Conversations are
patterns of exchange and
communication in which
people engage with
themselves or others to
reduce the equivocality of
a problematic issue
 The salient elements of a
deliberation include the …
• Topics or problematic
issues facing the social
entity about which people
reflect and communicate
• Forums in which they
occur which may be
structured, semi-
structured, unstructured
or ad hoc
• Participants - both those
who are currently involved
and those who ideally
should be involved in the
deliberation

9. Examples of Key Conversations/Deliberations
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Orchid
 What experiment shall we run?
 How shall we design the experiment?
 How shall we execute the experiment?
 How do we make sense of the results?
 NACC
 What data will go in the UDS?
 What diagnostic instruments shall we use?
 Who will have access to the data?
 LVG
 What new features shall we develop?
 What contractor shall we use for this work?
 What will the requirements be for the contractor?
April 2012

10. Examples of Knowledge Work Barriers
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Lack of knowledge
 In the Orchid project, the technical procedures in two different
laboratories were discovered to be incompatible and initially
prevented development of inter-dependent experiments
 Failure to utilize knowledge
 In NACC, the perspectives of a few relevant scientific
disciplines (e.g. bio-technicians) appear to have not yet been
utilized in the ongoing development of the UDS
 In LVG, corporate intelligence about particular vendor
competencies were not initially utilized by an individual
division in their vendor selection procedures
April 2012

11. Knowledge Work Barriers Cont d
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Failure to share knowledge
 In LVG, the test center did not understand the culture of the co-
located team members and the development process
 In Orchid, the graduate students were not comfortable sharing up
what they saw and/or did not understand- F2F helped build trust
 In LVG, due to IP concerns, unable to share mother code
 Lack of common frame of reference
 In Orchid, experimentalists from different scientific disciplines use
different language and have different approaches to describe and
interpret the same data
 In LVG, the developers did not have a common frame of how to
conduct tests of the game
April 2012

12. Exercise Part 1
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Spend 5 minutes and think of a past or present issue that you are
aware of, with a team in your organization that has virtual
components.
 Where would you place the project on the innovation continuum,
R1- D4?
 What is/was the issue? What type of knowledge work barriers do
you suspect were at play?
 Let s share our examples and consider the learnings from our
project to your examples
 Large group conversation
April 2012

13. Our Findings
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 The work characteristics are similar
between face-to-face (F2F) and distributed
 In a high velocity environment, take time
early in the process to scope things out
clearly with specificity
 F2F is of value across the entire continuum
 F2F appears to be critical on the
unknown /R side of the continuum- where
uncertainty is high
 Reliance on divergence greater at R end of
continuum, reliance on convergence,
standardization higher at D end of
continuum
 Failure to utilize knowledge seemed higher
in the D3-D4 side of the continuum
 Rich media significantly adds value to
coordination, cooperation, communication
and commitment

14. Surprising
What We
Didn t
Find
 Relatively inconsequential …
 Culture
 Language
 Time difference
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237

15. Coordination
Mechanisms
to Facilitate
Innovation
between
Distributed
Collaborators
April 2012Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Mutual Adjustment
 Direct Supervision
 Standardization of Work Processes
 Standardization of Output
 Standardization of Skills and Knowledge
 Standardization of Norms
 Henry Mintzberg, 1979

16. Some Fixes
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Orchid
 Temporary, co-location of scientist to build common frame of reference
 Co-creation, mutual adjustment of new procedures
 Develop personal relationships (trust)
 NACC
 Inclusion in conversations/deliberations of key technical staff
 Clear, specific standardization of data submittal process
 Purposeful social network that supports collaboration
 LVG
 Podcasts with the test center and core team during sprint cycles
 Create new role of prime contact/supervisor with contractors
 Chunk requirements of contractors deliverables to ensure on target
April 2012

17. Implications for Leaders on Virtual Teams
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 See your role more broadly- from command and control to coordinate
and cultivate- develop your facility to use more tools
 Cultivate the ability to move back and forth across the innovation
continuum as needed
 Communicate using appropriate technology
 Take time to build relationships
 Develop and use processes that support coordination, communication,
vision and direction and norm building
 Ensure requirements are clear, specific and understood
 Take some risks with processes and technology- experiment and
acknowledge the learning that is transpiring
 Be rigorous about monitoring/ chunking deliverables and progress
April 2012

18. Exercise Part 2
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 Revisiting the issue related to distributed
(team)work that you were asked to recall and
consider in Exercise 1 –
 Was there an attempt to address it?
 If so, what was it and how successful was it?
 If not successful, why not and what was the overall
outcome of the work?
 What do you see as leadership implications?
April 2012

19. References
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
 National Science Foundation Voss Team: Doug Austrom,
Betty Barrett, Betsy Merck, Bert Painter, Pam Posey, Ron
Purser, Ramkrishnan Tenkasi
 (Supported by NSF-VOSS award #0943237)
 Toward an Understanding of the Factors Which Enable
and Obstruct Learning in New Product Development: An
Action Research Study, Center for Effective Organizations,
Purser, Pasmore & Tenkasi, 1994
 Six Stage Continuum of the Innovation Process, Bell Labs
& Carolyn Ordowich, and the Voss Team 2012
 The Design of Business, Roger Martin, 2009
 Six Coordination Mechanisms, Henry Mintzberg, 1979
April 2012

20. Appendix: Mintzberg s Coordination
Mechanisms in Detail
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
1. Mutual adjustment
 Coordination of work is made possible by a process of informal
communication between people conducting interdependent work.
2. Direct supervision
 Coordination is achieved by one individual taking responsibility for the
work of others.
3. Standardization of work processes
 Coordination is made possible by specifying the work content in rules
or routines to be followed. Coordination occurs before the activity is
undertaken. Mintzberg adopted Taylorism: procedures are usually
specified by work-study analysis.
April 2012

21. Appendix: Mintzberg s Coordination
Mechanisms in Detail
Supported by NSE-VOSS Award #0943237
4. Standardization of output
 Coordination is obtained by the communication and clarification of
expected results. The individual actions required to obtain a goal are
not prescribed. This goal setting method is closely related to Drucker's
Management by Objectives.
5. Standardization of skills and knowledge
 Coordination is reached through specified and standardized training
and education. People are trained to know what to expect of each other
and coordinate in almost automatic fashion.
6. Standardization of norms
 Norms are standardized, socialization is used to establish common
values and beliefs in order for people work toward common
expectations. Mintzberg added this cultural based mechanism at a
later stage.
April 2012