 

Collaborative Problem Solving

. Background
As already mentioned in the first chapter, an important strand of CI
research addresses problem solving that involves direct interaction in
smaller groups or teams. A number of these studies have identified a
general ability of a group to perform on a wide variety of tasks, indicating
that groups, in the same way as individuals, also have a general intelligence
(Malone, : ; Woolley et al., , ). Although the individual
intelligence of the group members is relevant, both the correlation between
the average and maximum intelligence of the group members and the
group’s CI is only moderately strong. Factors such as group satisfaction
and group motivation are not significantly correlated, adding more uncer-
tainty to what group processes are most important (Malone, : –,
–).
Woolley et al. () suggest that CI involved in collaborative problem
solving in smaller groups is influenced by a complex interaction of both
bottom-up (e.g., interpersonal skills) and top-down processes (group
structures, norms, and routines) during problem-solving. Malone points
to the importance of the three following factors: () individual intelligence,
() working well with others, () cognitive diversity (Malone, :
–). At present, studies both cover offline and online settings, but we
still know little about the factors that influence on CI processes or this
collaborative problem-solving ability. However, current CI studies suggest
that at least four group factors are important for collaborative problem
solving:
– Working well with others
– Cognitive diversity
– Equal participation
– Joint coordination



[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Working Well with Others 
These four factors will be analyzed by reviewing current CI studies directed
towards small group collaboration, and other relevant publications by well-
known CI researchers. In all these areas, there is also extensive research
from outside of the CI research context, but it is out of the scope of this
chapter to address these.
Instead, case studies from virtual teams in online innovation contests are
included because they represent authentic problem solving in a highly
relevant CI context (IdeaConnection). In some contests, individuals are
handpicked for the teams. Sixteen experts are divided into three or four
teams and these teams are then given  weeks to compete against each
other in solving the problem. In this contest format, seekers only receive a
few high-quality good solutions. This reduces review time compared with
innovation challenges that include hundreds of submitted ideas, many of
low quality. In the teams, participant motivation is also often high, since the
chance of winning is greater. In addition, a facilitator supports the team in
the problem-solving process (IdeaConnection, a, b, e). The
data from these teams provide insight into how advanced collaborative
problem solving in the online setting can emerge in a natural setting.

. Working Well with Others

Several CI studies find that that the ability of the group members to work
well with others is important. This factor is typically measured as social
perceptiveness by tests like “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” (Baron-
Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, ) that requires that the
test person judge others’ emotions from looking only at pictures of their
eyes. Group members vary significantly in how well they perform this task,
and the average social perceptiveness score of the group members has been
found to have a significant positive influence on the group’s CI. It
indicates that social perceptiveness is a measure of a person’s social
intelligence (Malone, : –, –).
Interestingly, one study shows that the social perceptiveness was equally
good at predicting collective intelligence in both face-to-face groups and
online groups (Engel, Woolley, Jing, Chabris, & Malone, ). The
result is surprising because the online groups could not observe each other,
but only type text messages. It suggests that social perceptiveness is
predictive of much broader interpersonal skills (Woolley et al., ).
For example, the skill that enables you to read emotions in people’s faces
may perhaps make you sensitive to guessing what other people are feeling,
even when they are only experienced through written text in an online

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
setting (Malone, : ). Alternatively, the social perceptiveness may
have something to do with qualities in the group interaction, such as active
listening skills.
There is still significant uncertainty around the relational dimension in
CI. The reason is that the c-factor is not predicted by several other factors
that typically predict well-functioning groups, such as group satisfaction,
social cohesiveness, and psychological safety concerning interpersonal risks
(Woolley et al., ). In addition, few CI studies examine group inter-
action data and lack ecological validity, since they are experimental studies.
For instance, there may be important differences between time-limited ad
hoc groups and permanent groups. It is also likely that both specific
individual relational skills and specific qualities in the group interaction
are important. Top solvers in innovation teams in online innovation
contests are assumed to inform our understanding of this relational
dimension in collaborative problem solving and the types of group inter-
action that are important in CI.

.. Being in a Symmetrical Group Relationship

First, the perception of the group relationship appears to be important.
Some solvers explicitly state that the team relationship evolves through the
collaboration in itself. They highlight the unusually symmetrical collabo-
rative relationship with less group hierarchy in the online setting. One
solver states:
In the academic world, like everywhere else there is also ego and self-promotion.
But when you work in a team environment, it is very important to keep an open
mind and to be critical but also respectful. It is a very delicate balance to
maintain. Some collaborations just do not work because people don’t want to
change their minds. But when you have a successful team, it is like magic,
because when people are interacting with each other to learn and teach each
other, a great trust develops. These are teams of equals and there is less hierarchy.
According to the solver, this “team of equals” emerges when people learn
and teach each other during the group work. Interestingly, the solver
claims that this process of learning and teaching together creates “great
trust,” which allows groups members to be both critical and respectful (see
Section .). Other solvers underline how learning and group relationships
are intertwined. One solver says, “The fact that there is always something
to learn from other team members makes me look forward to meetings
every time.” The joy of learning together is an important part of the
motivation. Another solver highlights the multidisciplinary team effort,

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Working Well with Others 
“One of the challenges I recently worked on was completely out of my
field, and the interest there is getting to know people from a different
discipline and to see how they interact, how they work together and what
their strengths are. That’s really what I enjoy, I think, most of all.”
If valuable peer learning is present, this has a positive influence on the
group’s ability to work well with each other in these high-performing
teams. However, there are also challenges in the group dynamics. One
solver explains:
The discussions are fun, usually anyway. Of course, when you meet people
online that you’ve never met before you will get along well with some, but others
are going to annoy you a little if they hog the conversations. Some people don’t
know when to be quiet and listen. So that’s when the skills of a facilitator really
come to the fore.
This solver’s statement suggests that listening skills are important. If the
group struggles, a facilitator will help support the process.

.. Interest in Meeting People Who Are Different

Second, several solvers report that they enjoy being together with the
others in the team. One solver says, “A lot of the time you meet interesting
people with interesting occupations just by working in a team.” This
statement suggests a curiosity and interest in meeting new people that
might be of special importance in this type of collaboration between
people who do not previously know each other. Another solver describes
it as both fun and interesting to learn about others’ different cultural
backgrounds, “It is nice to see how various team members with different
backgrounds come up a solution to particular challenge in a novel way. We
usually have fun times during meetings and exchange cultural backgrounds
to get know each other well.” Another solver also underlines the joy of
being in a good team, “The different personalities, the experiences and the
conversations. Then there is the camaraderie, which is incredible.” Here,
the term “camaraderie” is used, perhaps indicating a close relationship that
is not friendship, but closer to just being engaged in group work. A third
solver even misses the team afterwards: “And you know, when the whole
thing was over I missed talking to the team. We got to know each other
more than just as co-workers. It was nice. I really did miss the whole
process when it was over.” When the solver misses the team, it indicates
positive feelings towards work, but also that many do not keep contact
after the work is over.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
Furthermore, some underline the excitement of getting to know people
with a different background and expertise; one solver even describes it as
“love”:
I love it and I love meeting all the different people. I am working with engineers,
chemists, physicists and mathematicians and they all come at these problems
with different philosophies and with a different academic background. They are
giving different slices of their own expertise. I think it is extremely synergistic
and it keeps me on my toes. I have to be sharp so I can debate with different
experts on an equal level.
The solver describes how motivating it is to meet people with different
academic backgrounds. Some solvers establish long-term relations
with other solvers, both by expanding their social and professional
networks:
Yes, and there’s also ‘c’ and that is I get to meet lots of interesting people. For me
it is meeting those people and putting them in my network so when I am faced
with a new challenge I call them up. I launch companies with my networks. I’m
always looking for good people, those personalities that really mesh well with me
and vice versa and have skills that complement my own.
This solver is explicit about the goal of finding people who have relevant
expertise and can be part of a future network. In authentic settings, some
solvers will want to work well with others because they have a strategic
interest in establishing long-term business relations.
If we compare all these statements, the excitement of meeting different
people stands out. One solver even describes team members as typical
extroverts, “I also found people to be very, very open, and very accommo-
dating. I think people who do open innovation by default are quite open
minded.” Solvers are motivated by getting to know new people. The social
dimension of “working well with others” points to both specific personal-
ity characteristics and group characteristics, such as being in a symmetrical
group relationship.

. Cognitive Diversity

Another important factor in CI research orientated towards collaborative
problem solving is cognitive diversity (Woolley et al., ). Here, the
emphasis is not primarily on the different types of information other
persons can bring to the table, but it is about the different thinking styles
and perspectives that individuals use when they solve a task. Cognitive
diversity is especially valuable in creative problem solving, which relies on

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Cognitive Diversity 
new perspectives. Today, there is more interest in examining how groups
of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of more homogeneous
high-ability performers (Page, ). Several areas provide strong evidence
of diversity bonuses. One example is in academic research, where the
percentage of teamwork has increased steadily in nearly all areas. For
example, in social sciences,  percent of the papers were coauthored in
, and in , this numbers had increased to  percent of the papers.
Teams also perform better in science with coauthored papers earning more
citations (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, ).
The value of cognitive diversity will also depend on variation in per-
spectives (Page, ). For example, one top solver states that different
backgrounds in the team can help produce more ideas:
Overall, it was a great experience working on the team. I do like to work with
other people, and the one challenge that I’ve worked on so far, required a lot of
theoretical work that needed expertise in many fields so I don’t think one person
could’ve solved it successfully. The challenge needed various backgrounds [. . .]
In the group you hear many different points of view which gives you more ideas
and helps you to think of things from different perspectives.
When hearing “many different points of view” this can stimulate idea
development. Another solver even actively seeks to increase cognitive
diversity by wanting to work with individuals that think differently:
They have to be able to work with me. There’s a wonderful saying a couple of
guys in my network and I came up with – if we think the same about
everything, if we think identically, one of us is redundant. I want people who
challenge me and look at problems in completely different ways than I do and
look for solutions in their realms of expertise and experience that are dramat-
ically different from mine. People that come into my networks are very diverse
and extremely different.
The statement illustrates that some persons appear to be more aware of
being with others who “look at problems in completely different ways than
I do.” The emphasis on perspectives that are “dramatically different from
mine” indicates an attempt to maximize cognitive diversity. However,
some CI studies indicate that the most collectively intelligent groups are
those that are moderately diverse in cognitive styles. If the cognitive styles
in the group are too diverse, group members communicate less effectively
with one another (Aggarwal, Woolley, Chabris, & Malone, ; Woolley
et al., ).
An effective team must be able to share idea and acknowledge dissent.
They also need to feel safe, respected, and validated. These conditions are

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
important in groups that are able to combine and improve ideas (Page,
). For example, one solver highlights how the team is able to refine
solution:
Overall, my view of IdeaConnection is that it is a great innovation because
when somebody thinks alone they might think their idea is great but it may not
be. When you are a part of a team if your idea is not quite there you can correct
it as others are contributing. And when everyone is giving their opinions you get
a very good refined solution in the end. It also connects people from different
walks of life. I’ve been able to work with people from India, Canada and the
Netherlands at the same time. I think the IdeaConnection concept is great.
In good teams, ideas will be continuously corrected or modified through
contributions from every group member. Another solver explains how
cognitive diversity enhances individual learning: “I also learned a lot about
other disciplines, other ways of thinking through a problem, styles of
writing, styles of solving complex issues, and how to integrate our different
perspectives into a coherent whole.” The individual learning is not only
about acquiring knowledge of other disciplines, but about observing how
others solve problems.
Furthermore, research studies have found a connection between cogni-
tive diversity and identity diversity (Page, : ). Identity diversity or
social category diversity refers to distinctions that are made between people
who are like me (in-group) and people who are not like me (out-group),
typically involving factors like, gender, nationality, ethnicity, or age, but
also “non-visible” characteristics like sexual orientation. While most people
intuitively acknowledge the value of functional background diversity, it is
less obvious that socially diverse groups can have the same effects. First,
identity diversity can be a source of cognitive diversity because individuals
with more different backgrounds will bring in more variation in experi-
ences that likely also increase the cognitive diversity. However, this is not a
hard-and-fast rule; two persons with different identity do not automatically
bring different cognitive perspectives to the table, nor does two persons
from the same identity group automatically bring identical cognitive
perspectives. There will always be some degree of both cognitive and
identity diversity in a group. Still, it is important to assume that identity
differences among group members like gender and race can promote
cognitive diversity because one will then also be more open to approaching
the same problem in different ways.
A second benefit of identity diversity is simply that persons who observe
differences on the surface tend to assume that there are more cognitive
differences in the group. This prompts them to seek out this information.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Cognitive Diversity 
For example, including women in a group with only men is one way of
stimulating cognitive diversity in groups. Difficult decisions often benefit
from diverse representation. The mere presence of identity outsiders can
change the behavior of the identity majority and potentially enhance group
performance. Even if a person who is “different” does not bring in more
cognitive differences, the mere presence has been shown to change the
behavior of the group’s members (Phillips, ).
One important reason is that people work harder in identity-diverse
environments compared with homogeneous environments in their
attempts to benefit from cognitive diversity. In this context, the groups
are more positive and accepting towards alternative viewpoints. Studies
show that persons who interact with individuals they perceive as different
expect that it will require an effort to reach agreement (Phillips, ).
Studies have also found that racial diversity can promote critical think-
ing. For example, one study compared homogeneous groups of six white
jurors with mixed groups comprising four white and two black jurors. The
white jurors in mixed groups raised more novel case facts, identified more
missing evidence, and were more accurate in the discussion compared with
whites in homogeneous groups. One possible explanation is that individ-
uals in heterogeneous groups expect more disagreement to be present in
the group, and therefore examine the case more thoroughly. The perceived
presence of identity diversity decreases conformity to socially similar others
in a group and makes it easier for everyone to speak up with more
confidence (Phillips, : –; Sommers, ).
Just being exposed to diversity can change the way you think. In contrast,
it may be more difficult to utilize cognitive diversity if there are no perceived
triggers from identity differences. A group of individuals with similar
identity traits will easily create stronger expectations of consensus. Group
members care more about maintaining relationships and harmony if they
are together with identity-similar others (Phillips ). When hiring
people, we have a tendency to falsely believe that people who share our
identity are smarter and more capable. For example, studies show that biases
range from  to  percent for salary offers. Small biases can also accumulate
to form large biases, such as when a person needs to pass ten biased hurdles
to reach the top of a company. These biased decisions can also be unin-
tended and unconscious and may trigger nepotism (Page, : –).
A striking example is a study which found that, when homogenous groups
were outperformed by diverse groups, the homogenous groups still reported
greater confidence and effectiveness (Phillips, : –; Phillips,
Liljenquist, & Neale, ). People will filter both what they are saying

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
and how they hear information, depending on who they are talking to and
who is sharing that information. Individuals are often cautious in their
support for diversity because they fear potential downsides. Studies show
significant resistance against identity diversity because it is likely to result in
more conflicts, disagreement, and questioning of one’s own perspectives
and opinions. These challenges require hard work that group members do
not necessarily want. There is also a risk that outsiders are not respected or
do not speak up because they do not feel welcome in the group. More
identity diversity can cause discomfort, a lack of trust and mutual respect,
communication barriers, and greater perceived interpersonal conflict. It can
undermine the commitment to a group’s goal, and it will not always be
possible to observe immediate benefits. If some group members are more
respected than others, group norms must also be reorganized to ensure that
everyone’s ideas are presented (Phillips, ).
On the other hand, if the group members become too similar to each
other in cognitive style, they will lack the variety of perspectives and skills
needed to perform well (Aggarwal et al., ; Malone, : ; Woolley
et al., ). If groups become too similar, they risk becoming echo
chambers, and reinforce each other’s existing opinions. Members may
become more interested in getting along than critically evaluating each
other’s ideas. For CI, it is crucial to bring in a sufficient diversity of
perspectives (Woolley et al., ).
Organizations typically attempt to utilize cognitive diversity by com-
bining it with functional background diversity (Page, ). For example,
several of the solvers highlight the value of multidisciplinary diversity:
So on a previous challenge on the prediction of the fate of organic chemicals in
soil, the seeker was looking for a model and we had a statistician on the scene
and without a statistician we would’ve been dead in the water. But the
statistician didn’t know any chemistry and didn’t know how these things
degraded. So separately we would’ve been useless but together we were a good
team.
This solver claims the problem could not have been solved without the
different academic backgrounds in the team. Another solver explains the
value of including geographical diversity in an online setting:
For instance, we had people from South America, Canada, the U.S., and so
having people from different climates provided insight into different crops, times
of year, soil types, just real on the ground practical information. If you had just a
number of folks in a university in one particular city it might be difficult to
get all those types of insights.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Equal Participation 
In this case, informational diversity is utilized because individuals from
different parts of the world can easily participate in the problem-solving
process. One solver also emphasizes the importance of complementary
rather than overlapping expertise:
I think the difference is that the challenges at IdeaConnection tend to have a
group of people who probably wouldn’t be working together in the sense that
they have complementary rather than overlapping expertise. So you’re now
putting people talking together who think differently and also have a different
primary dataset on which they’re basing what they’re talking about. So you have
a much more widely read community in lots of ways at that point.
All these examples illustrate how the online setting makes it easy to design
teams that would not normally be working together. These groups build
on both multidisciplinary and multicultural diversity, which can poten-
tially utilize cognitive diversity in new ways.

. Equal Participation

Equal participation is another important factor for CI in collaborative
problem solving. Several studies shows that equality of communication
and work contribution among group members is important, both in face-
to-face and online groups. When one or two people dominate the conver-
sation, the group is on average less intelligent compared with groups that
have a more evenly distributed participation and conversational turn-
taking (Engel et al., ; Malone, : –; Woolley et al., ,
). One argument is the fair sharing of the workload. Another is that
equal participation aims to utilize diverse member skills by involving
everyone. However, group dynamics will often hinder this openness
because group members think their opinion is irrelevant or they may fear
disapproval from others (Landemore, ; Sunstein, ). In a classical
experiment, Stasser and Titus () showed that groups discussing a
political problem are often surprisingly bad at using all the information
they possess. Sometimes, group discussions even lead to worse decisions.
In the experiment, three written profiles of fictional president candidates
of the student government at a university were created. The profiles
contained information about the candidates’ policies on issues of interest
to students like dorm visitation hours and local drinking ordinances. They
deliberately constructed three profiles so that one of the candidates was
clearly more desirable than the other two. In the first version of the
experiment, each student received complete profiles of all three candidates,

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
and, not surprisingly, , percent of the students chose the best candidate.
When students were then divided into small groups of four persons, the support
for the best candidate increased to  percent (Nielsen, : –).
However, in the second version of the experiment, the researchers
altered the profiles so that each student only received partial information
about the three candidates. Some of the positive information about the
best candidate was removed, and in addition some of the negative infor-
mation about the undesirable candidates. Every group member would
therefore receive information that suggested that one of the undesirable
candidates was better than the best candidate. As a result,  percent then
individually chose the undesirable candidate. Afterwards, students were
divided into small groups of four with all information available about all
three candidates. Still, the support for the undesirable candidate increased
from  percent to  percent and the support for the best candidate
decreased from  to  percent. It showed that groups were not sharing
information in an efficient way, and they performed worse than the
average member in the group. In a  follow-up of the same experiment,
the researchers found that the main weakness was that the group spent
most of their time discussing information they had in common and did
not use time exploring all available information. When several members
had negative information about the best candidate, this was perceived as
more important than the positive information held by only a single
member. Groupthink ignores information from others even when most
students think it is important to pool information from everyone. Another
follow-up study found that asymmetrical relationships amplify the negative
influence on group decisions. Unique information held by low-status
members was much more likely to be ignored (Nielsen, : –).
Although few CI studies provide any detailed characteristics of equal
participation in collaborative problem solving, the design of cognitive
diversity will obviously be relevant. Groups who emphasize the value of
a diversity of perspectives will strive to involve all group members (Phillips,
: –). If we look at the online innovation teams, several top
solvers also mention the value of equal participation. One solver states:
We all had different contributions which is what made it fun and stimulating.
I looked forward to our discussions together. We did phone conferences and the
team was so respectful of each other’s backgrounds. We really worked hard to
incorporate all our backgrounds into the final product. And I felt the theoretical
portion which I contributed was honored as much as the technical content. The
way we worked together was a wonderful experience and an example of how to
truly collaborate and listen to each other.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Equal Participation 
Here, the solver emphasizes that all contribute, but differently. The team is
“respectful of each other’s backgrounds,” honoring each other’s work and
tries to “incorporate all our backgrounds into the final product.” The
ability to “listen to each other” is an important part of this process.
Here, equal participation is about cognitive diversity by respecting and
listening to others in the group. Because these teams are multidisciplinary
and each individual has unique competence, it might be more obvious to
let everyone voice their opinion. Another solver also describes how equal
participation involves having different roles and tasks in the group work:
In the first way, as it went along we started to naturally fall into different roles
on the team and I think that helped. Initially as four team members, we were
trying to split things equally into four, and then, I think, we would get kind of
frustrated if two people held up their end of that bargain and two people were
lackadaisical about it or maybe procrastinating a little bit. Whereas, eventually
we ended up where we naturally fell into distinct roles.
This solver explains that the teams initially split the work into four identical
parts, but this still led to some persons doing more work than others did. If
some individuals are free riding, this can threaten the group work. With the
support of the facilitator, the team managed to reorganize the work.
Because  weeks is a short period to solve a scientific problem, building
trust in the virtual team is crucial. Solvers will often need to work with
tasks that do not fully fall under their own expertise. Some will need weeks
to understand the basic terminology, which can potentially create difficul-
ties in sustaining the work because members work part time. Others may
quit before the project is finished. When the solvers work in teams, a
typical source of conflict will be members who do not do their part of the
task. Nor may there be enough time to solve all relevant issues in the team
meetings (Arnold, a; Hossain, ). In order to design equal partic-
ipation, it is necessary to understand “what people want to achieve” and
how they can contribute to the group. However, the mix of expertise can
also be challenging, as one solver states:
So it got better as I got to understand where the other people were in their careers
and what their background was in terms of whom should work on which part of
the project, who should be working together, and who should be editing things
in terms of making sure that everything is coherent. It got easier as it went on.
There was a lot of standing off at the beginning.
In this example, the work improved when the group found out who
should work on which part of the project. It underlines the importance

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
of explicitly discussing tasks to ensure equal participation. Regarding this
issue, the solvers highlight the importance of the facilitators:
He [the facilitator] submits the solutions, which is good, and writes them up. He
wants to get contributions from everybody. It’s like, say you’re the foreman of a
jury, and everyone has to vote, the foreman wants to get everyone’s opinion. It’s
the same thing here; a facilitator makes sure everybody contributes. And he’ll
delegate the work and so on.
The prominent role of a facilitator illustrates that teams will often benefit from
a skilled person who can help organize the work in an effective way. It is likely
that these groups to a much larger degree would have failed, like in the Stasser
Titus experiment, if they were left to self-organize. Equal participation is
without doubt an important design principle in collaborative problem solving
that builds on CI, as numerous empirical studies and case stories show. It is
not a principle that groups will automatically organize themselves around.

. Joint Coordination

The fourth important CI factor in collaborative problem solving is joint
coordination. Current studies find that the amount of spoken communi-
cation is important, both in face-to-face groups and written dialogue in
online groups (Engel et al., ; Woolley et al., ). It is possible that
more communication stimulates a stronger shared practice and more joint
coordination of the problem-solving process. Previous sections highlighted
both cognitive diversity and equal participation. However, there needs to
be a balance between maintaining divergence and establishing a common
understanding or shared goal. If the group share a body of knowledge and
strategies, it is more likely they will resolve disagreements (Page, :
; Phillips, ). However, we need to better understand how this
joint coordination can be achieved in collaborative problem solving. The
data from the innovation teams suggest that at least four different coordi-
nation mechanisms are relevant:
. Establishing a shared understanding of the problem
. Planning the process
. Staying focused on the shared goals
. Ensuring the conversational flow
These coordination processes are heavily influenced by a facilitator who
supports the process (Arnold, b; IdeaConnection, d). Without
this person, it is likely that this type of coordination will become
more difficult.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Joint Coordination 

.. Establishing a Shared Understanding of the Problem

First, it is important to establish a shared understanding of the problem. In
the first phase, teams may ask for clarification of the problem to make sure
that they avoid misunderstandings. One solver explains how the group
approached the seeker, asking for more information:
Yes, and I thoroughly believe in spending some time on analyzing the problem
because the solution doesn’t come out of thin air. It comes out of looking deeply
into the problem, the context, what has been done in parallel industries or what
has been done before. The more information you have, the easier it is to hone in
on the right solution. I find the meeting with the seeker a very important part of
the solution, because we really need to listen to them and try to learn from their
experience. As a team we have experience, but not experience of these direct
problems. Therefore, the more we can learn from the seeker the easier it is for us
to come up with a solution that will match their needs.
Here, the solver underlines the importance of listening to the seeker to
really understand the problem. New solutions will usually build on ver-
sions of solutions that already exist. A solver even looks at this clarification
process as a way of stimulating the development of new ideas.

.. Planning the Process

Second, it is necessary to outline a plan for the teamwork. In the innova-
tion teams, the facilitator will be important in ensuring this is done. The
facilitator proposes an outline that help the group members divide the
tasks. One solver explains this process:
Right away the facilitator came up with an outline that she felt would answer
the challenge and we took parts of that outline that were most appropriate to our
backgrounds. This outline was so helpful and I just adapted my theory to my
parts of the outline as did the other two solvers. We divided that outline in about
five minutes. It was painless.
By providing a structure and time plan, the joint coordination work
becomes much more efficient.

.. Staying Focused on Shared Goals

Third, it is important to stay focused on the shared goals. In the innova-
tion teams, the solvers underline how the facilitator helped the team stay
focused:

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

  . Collaborative Problem Solving
She was more of a moderator than a Facilitator because sometimes the conver-
sation would veer off into what I would call unproductive areas. Having the
Facilitator there cut the conversation short and kept us focused on trying to get
things done in the time we had allocated. I think that part was very critical for
me because my time was limited.
The facilitator kept the group on track by stopping “unproductive” con-
versations, which is important because time is limited. Another solver
illustrates how the group is highly focused on finding a solution and
nothing else:
Well, it’s much different than being part of groups in a company. I think
everybody is much more focused on the solution rather than focusing on building
their career or getting to lunch or other distractions you have in a small group in
a company. So the focus is much more laser-like and directed. It is very pleasant
to work with such focused people and experts in all of their fields. Everybody I’ve
worked with is an expert in their field and it’s good to get a glimpse of what
they’re doing at the cutting edges of their fields.
Although the group is diverse, with group members from many different
fields, the group is still very goal orientated. When all efforts only need to
be directed towards the cognitive effort of solving the problem, perfor-
mance can increase. In addition, a solver states that the facilitator helps
summarize the work, “The facilitator helps a lot. First of all, the facilitator
looks at the problem and focuses us on it. And he communicates all our
hopes and solutions into a coherent summary. And we look at the
summary and see a trend in the thinking. The facilitator helps us to come
up with the solution.” By having a person summarizing the collective
work, this can potentially help the group synthesize their efforts.

.. Ensuring the Conversational Flow

Fourth, it is important ensure the conversational flow. One solver says:
A fundamental part of any team is the facilitator. They are responsible for half
of the team’s success by keeping the pace and rhythm and solving any relation-
ship problems if they come up. The other half is due to the team’s technical
background and having the time and the will to do the job.
Here, the facilitator is vital in keeping up the pace and sustaining the
discussions. Part of the challenge is that individuals work differently, as
one solver states, “Then, the other challenging part of it, I think, was just
learning to work with people that you didn’t know previously. We all
seemed to have different styles of working and different styles of

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press

 . Joint Coordination 
communicating. But by the end, I felt good about the way we handled it
and the way we ended up coming together.” This group struggled because
they wanted to work and communicate in different ways. However, they
managed to come together and agree on a shared group strategy. Another
solver also emphasizes that the facilitator is important when such conflicts
are present, “You need somebody to have that authority in the team,
especially when one person says this way is right, and someone else says
the other way is right.” It is important that the facilitator help settle
disagreements in an impartial way. This reduces the likelihood of new
conflicts and sustains the conversational flow in a better way.

[Link] Published online by Cambridge University Press