Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- 21 Designing and Executing Effective Meetings with Codified Best Facilitation Practices
- 22 Finding the Gorilla
- 23 Information Utilization in Meetings
- 24 What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings?
- 25 Creativity and Meetings
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
21 - Designing and Executing Effective Meetings with Codified Best Facilitation Practices
from Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- 21 Designing and Executing Effective Meetings with Codified Best Facilitation Practices
- 22 Finding the Gorilla
- 23 Information Utilization in Meetings
- 24 What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings?
- 25 Creativity and Meetings
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
Collaboration is a ubiquitous phenomenon in organizations that often takes place in the setting of a meeting. Organizations use meetings as a focal point to bring people together to collaborate, coordinate, plan, or accomplish some result. This chapter focuses on a specific type of meeting: co-creation meetings, where teams collaborate to produce tangible deliverables. The chapter begins with a discussion of co-creation meetings and the role of facilitation in leading groups in these settings. We then introduce two key concepts to support facilitators. First, patterns of collaboration are the building blocks of the collaboration process in a co-creation meeting. Second, the ThinkLets pattern language represents a collection of codified packets of facilitation skills to achieve predictable, repeatable patterns of collaboration. ThinkLets can be used as a form of collaboration Lego to design and execute co-creation meetings. To illustrate the applicability of ThinkLets, we present a case study with the American Telehealth Association (ATA). We discuss our use of ThinkLets in the design of four collaborative writing workshops, specifically, meeting process design, results, and participant perceptions. We conclude with an examination of the broader applications of ThinkLets, including other types of co-creation meetings, some limitations of the work presented here, and directions for future research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 483 - 503Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Bostrom, R. P., Anson, R., & Clawson, V. K. (1991). Group facilitation and group support systems. In Jessup, L. M. & Valacich, J. S. (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 146–168). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Boughzala, I., Assar, S., & Romano Jr, N. C. (2010). An e-government field study of process virtualization modeling. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of Group Decision & Negotiation. Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. O., Kolfschoten, G., Vreede, G. J. de, & Douglas, D. (2006). Defining key concepts for collaboration engineering. AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, Paper 17. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2006/17.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. O., Kolfschoten, G. L., Vreede, G. J. de, Lukosch, S., & Albrecht, C. C. (2013). Facilitator-in-a-box: Process support applications to help practitioners realize the potential of collaboration technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29, 159–194. doi:10.2753/mis0742–1222290406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., & Vreede, G. J. de. (2006). Meeting satisfaction for technology-supported groups: An empirical validation of a goal-attainment model. Small Group Research, 37, 585–611. doi:10.1177/1046496406294320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R. O., Vreede, G. J. de, & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr, (2003). Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 31–64.Google Scholar
Clawson, V. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Anson, R. (1993). The role of the facilitator in computer-supported meetings. Small Group Research, 24, 547–565. doi:10.1177/1046496493244007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 90–104. doi:10.1037/a0021549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, G. W., Lee-Partridge, J. E., Limayem, M., & Desanctis, G. L. (1996). Facilitating computer-supported meetings: A cumulative analysis in a multiple-criteria task environment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 51–72. doi:10.1007/BF00554237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J., Hutter, K., & Faullant, R. (2011). Why co-creation experience matters? Creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions. R & D Management, 41, 259–273. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9310.2011.00640.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, T. L., Fuller, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1998). Facilitator influence in group support systems: Intended and unintended effects. Information Systems Research, 9, 20–36. doi:10.1287/isre.9.1.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem-solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195–218. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1702_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolfschoten, G. L., Briggs, R. O., Vreede, G. J. de, Jacobs, P. H. M., & Appelman, J. H. (2006). A conceptual foundation of the ThinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 611–621. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolfschoten, G. L., Lowry, P. B., Dean, D. L., Vreede, G. J. de, & Briggs, R. O. (2014). Patterns in collaboration. In Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. Romano, N. C. Jr., & Briggs, R. O. (Eds.), Collaboration systems: Concept, value, and use (pp. 83–108). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Kolfschoten, G. L., Vreede, G. J. de, & Pietron, L. R. (2011). A training approach for the transition of repeatable collaboration processes to practitioners. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20, 347–371. doi:10.1007/s10726–010–9208–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolfschoten, G. L., & Vreede, G. J. de. (2009). A design approach for collaboration processes: A multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 225–256. doi:10.2753/MIS0742–1222260109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65–76. doi:10.1007/s10869–009–9092–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Johnson, J. (2012). Practices to improve group creativity: A longitudinal field investigation. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 257–265.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Feldman, J. M., Hein, M. B., & Nagao, D. J. (2001). Tradeoffs between ideas and structure: Individual versus group performance in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 1–23. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2001.tb01218.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabukenya, J., Bommel, P. V., Proper, H. A., & Vreede, G. J. de. (2011). An evaluation instrument for collaborative processes: Application to organizational policy-making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20, 465–488. doi:10.1007/s10726–009–9177–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, C., Oh, O., Kocsis, D., & Vreede, G. J. de. (2013). Crowdsourcing as Lego: Unpacking the building blocks of crowdsourcing collaboration processes. ICIS 2013 Proceedings, Paper 22.Google Scholar
Niederman, F., Beise, C. M., & Beranek, P. M. (1996). Issues and concerns about computer-supported meetings: The facilitator's perspective. MIS Quarterly, 20. doi:10.2307/249540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems. Communications of the ACM, 34, 40–61. doi:10.1145/105783.105793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Romano Jr, N. C., & Briggs, R. O. (2013). Collaboration systems: Concept, value, and use. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Pantanowitz, L., Wiley, C. A., Demetris, A., Lesniak, A., Ahmed, I., Cable, W., Contis, A. V. L., & Parwani, A. V. (2012). Experience with multimodality telepathology at the University of Pittsburgh medical center. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 3, 45. doi:10.4103/2153–3539.104907CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2002). The co-creation connection. Strategy and Business, 50–61.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy & Leadership, 37, 32–37. doi:10.1108/10878570910941208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, S. (2005). The IAF handbook of group facilitation: Best practices from the leading organization in facilitation. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Shanock, L. R., Allen, J. A., Dunn, A. M., Baran, B. E., Scott, C. W., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Less acting, more doing: How surface acting relates to perceived meeting effectiveness and other employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 457–476. doi:10.1111/joop.12037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreede, G. J. de. (2014). Achieving repeatable team performance through collaboration engineering: Experiences in two case studies. Management Information Systems Quarterly Executive, 13(2), 115–129.Google Scholar
Vreede, G. J. de, Boonstra, J., & Niederman, F. (2002). What is effective GSS facilitation? A qualitative inquiry into participants' perceptions. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 616–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreede, G. J. de, Briggs, R. O., & Massey, A. P. (2009). Collaboration engineering: Foundations and opportunities: Editorial to the special issue of the Journal of the Association of Information Systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreede, G. J. de, Davison, R. M., & Briggs, R. O. (2003). How a silver bullet may lose its shine. Communications of the ACM, 46, 96–101. doi:10.1145/859670.859676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreede, G. J. de, Kolfschoten, G. L., & Briggs, R. O. (2006). ThinkLets: A collaboration engineering pattern language. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 25, 140–154. doi:10.1504/IJCAT.2006.009064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by