Jump to content
ahmet

do you believe that "collaboration" teams are more successfull in engineering than individuals?

Recommended Posts

or ,are there any specific research that might support this idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ahmet said:

or ,are there any specific research that might support this idea?

No.

Teams sometimes work out well, but there was research back along to suggest that teams sometime fail because of their structure.

The ultimate team is, of course the committee, have you heard about the committee and the camel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, studiot said:

The ultimate team is, of course the committee, have you heard about the committee and the camel?

commitee or comission, I presume. Or Yes I heard but not sure about the full scope of this word.

I have no idea about camel.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

No.

Teams sometimes work out well, but there was research back along to suggest that teams sometime fail because of their structure.

I also do not know this issue well , but (if I consider myself) far from the issue; it seems collaboration groups / teams are really successfull. 

but it is good for me to hear that. thanks. 

Edited by ahmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A camel is a horse designed by a committee

:)

 

12 minutes ago, ahmet said:

it seems collaboration groups / teams are really successfull. 

Not always as I said, in my personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, studiot said:

A camel is a horse designed by a committee

ahahahhahaha ahahhaa haha :) :) :) :) :) 

:) :) :) :) :) 

I suddenly remmebered  @joigus hahahhahaha

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not always as I said, in my personal experience.

not always yes, but as far as I know the most successfull (more clearly: the most prosperous) people are in groups.

maybe I am wrong.not sure.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

A camel is a horse designed by a committee

within laughing, this might contain a tricky meaning. because this might contain this one:

"camel: a group of engineers are working too much, but do not earn much money"

if yes, you might have neglected a detail: groups / teams are acting like a human at the background 

we can also extend this to a country.

thus, what achievement is might be a bit different or multidimensional 

 

Edited by ahmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ahmet said:

or ,are there any specific research that might support this idea?

I think this is a great question, and I would like to see it asked (as well as read proposals to answer it) in a more general context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think this is a great question, and I would like to see it asked (as well as read proposals to answer it) in a more general context.

ya yes, thank you.

unfotunately ,I waited almost 7 years or more to try to give an answer to this question but still do not know.

however, I decided that waiting was time consuming

thus , I started something

hopefully I will start to my business too. 

Edited by ahmet
grammatical errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience a team is the best approach.  I have been on bad teams which of course are not going to succeed.  I have also been on teams that were hamstrung be management which didn't work out.  But in my years of engineering experience a good team is superior to an individual effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad teams are a failure that traces back to human failings; it’s not inherent to teamwork.

Any project of sufficient complexity will be compromised by having just one worker. Wider range of expertise applied to the project and the ability to work in parallel are two important advantages teamwork affords. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

No.

Teams sometimes work out well, but there was research back along to suggest that teams sometime fail because of their structure.

The ultimate team is, of course the committee, have you heard about the committee and the camel?

Depends on the commission: 

People to the moon, tick...

All people are equal, no tick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some examples from my experience.

3 hours ago, ahmet said:

"camel: a group of engineers are working too much, but do not earn much money"

If it's maximum money you want.

I have a friend who started his business from my front room and became a millionaire.
He said to me "If I work as an engineer (as part of a team) I can only make the wages of one engineer."

"But if I supply engineers to many clients at a %, I am not limited by the wages of an engineer, just the number of engineers I can supply"

On the other had in the late 1960s, an aircraft design company (Rotax) want to test the idea of teamwork with either a mix of specialists or groups of specialists of the same discipline.

So they gave these groups the task of designing and producing a safe control for two wing pumps, A and B.
The point was that the aircraft power supply was inadequate to start both pumps at the same time, although it could run both together once started.
Most machinery is like this it takes more power to start them than to run them.

The mechanical engineering group came up with a complicatd mechanical interlock between switch A and switch B.
The electronic engineering group came up with a fancy digital circuit board electronic version.

Both were tested by simultaneously jabbing both switches by hand.
Both failed.

The lone genius came up with a simple single two position switch labelled switch on A , switch on B.

In the offshore oil industry it takes teamwork to move a laybarge or an oil rig.
One is moved by a team of tender tugs shifting anchors and onboard winches,
The other by towing with a team of tender tugs.

However it takes a talented individual to set one of these tugs alongside an oilrig, laybarge or service jetty.

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

Here are some examples from my experience.

If it's maximum money you want.

I have a friend who started his business from my front room and became a millionaire.
He said to me "If I work as an engineer (as part of a team) I can only make the wages of one engineer."

"But if I supply engineers to many clients at a %, I am not limited by the wages of an engineer, just the number of engineers I can supply"

On the other had in the late 1960s, an aircraft design company (Rotax) want to test the idea of teamwork with either a mix of specialists or groups of specialists of the same discipline.

So they gave these groups the task of designing and producing a safe control for two wing pumps, A and B.
The point was that the aircraft power supply was inadequate to start both pumps at the same time, although it could run both together once started.
Most machinery is like this it takes more power to start them than to run them.

The mechanical engineering group came up with a complicatd mechanical interlock between switch A and switch B.
The electronic engineering group came up with a fancy digital circuit board electronic version.

Both were tested by simultaneously jabbing both switches by hand.
Both failed.

The lone genius came up with a simple single two position switch labelled switch on A , switch on B.

In the offshore oil industry it takes teamwork to move a laybarge or an oil rig.
One is moved by a team of tender tugs shifting anchors and onboard winches,
The other by towing with a team of tender tugs.

However it takes a talented individual to set one of these tugs alongside an oilrig, laybarge or service jetty.

 

can we find anyone who aim earning no much money ?

but of course not everyone reach to the target point. 

I am unable to provide comprehensive comment but already it does not seem meaningful ....and  more than speaking, working hard is required as you know.

on the other hand, yes, the strategy is highly effective. 

the example you provided is both cute and important .

thank you very much for sharing your valuable experience.

Edited by ahmet
spelling errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, of course, no reason for it to be an 'either....or' situation.

The BBC at the moment is showing a programme called 'The Repair Shop'

Here people bring in interesting (usually old) worn or damaged objects for repair.
The programme films the stages of the repair from the broken article to the finished result.
The objects themselves come in a huge variety of things.
1920s cash register tills, a world war 2 leather carrying case from the Air Ministry containing the rewuirements for an RAF chaplain to carry round and provide Communion,
Old toys, a victorian cast iron donations box for the Lifeboats, famous sporting trophys, old teddy bears...........................

Anyway all sorts of skills are involved so each volunteer does part of the job.
Carpentry, metalwork, ceramic and glasswork, leatherwork, sewing work, painting....................

 

Anyway although it is a team effort, each member of the team works alone and then hands their part on to the next member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Anyway although it is a team effort, each member of the team works alone and then hands their part on to the next member.

mmm, probably this sentence means that if any team's member wants ,then he/she can do something else at the same time working in the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The element hidden in several of the replies is creativity, or the lack thereof.  In my experience, collaborative teams where several members are very creative, especially if they have different skill sets, produce amazing results (because they tend to build on each other's inspirations).  But-- one good engineer, if sufficiently creative, can outperform a group that lacks creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, OldChemE said:

The element hidden in several of the replies is creativity, or the lack thereof.  In my experience, collaborative teams where several members are very creative, especially if they have different skill sets, produce amazing results (because they tend to build on each other's inspirations).  But-- one good engineer, if sufficiently creative, can outperform a group that lacks creativity.

It will also depend on the complexity of the task at hand and the requirement for specialist knowledge. A single person, regardless of ability, can only go so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect complex engineering projects are not even possible, let alone done better by individual engineers. Teams are essential. Selection and management of that team will be crucial.

As an aside I think the gratuitous derision of camels, as being a "badly designed horse" makes for a good joke - for horse lovers. Meanwhile camels are superior (better "designed") to horses - for wild survival and as a beast of burden - in many circumstances.

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

As an aside I think the gratuitous derision of camels, as being a "badly designed horse" makes for a good joke - for horse lovers. Meanwhile camels are superior (better "designed") to horses - for wild survival and as a beast of burden - in many circumstances.

I mean we technically one  could argue that animal species are basically "designed" by committee in so far as they emerged from a rigorous selection process. Among the "engineered" versions we do have, say, pugs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my Point of View, the answer is long but simple. A Team is based of a group of individuals  with different levels in Hard and Soft-Skills. In Theory, a well balanced and organised group of "Professionals" can achieve more in less time with a better result.

In reality this is not really common.

Why?

Well imagine this:
There is one  challenged decision maker in front of a screaming crowd of Inventors and Engineers.

What do you think, which idea will be chosen?
a) The best Solution    or   b) The Solution from the Engineer who can scream louder than anybody else.


In our society, internal politics and personal interests are the major influence when it comes to decision making and results.

For example:
It took 4 Days to solve a Clients Problem by myself, which his team of four engineers took 2 Month with no results.

The Scale of a team is also influencing Results btw.... 

IF a Team is hired to produce results, this can only be some how efficient if they interact by a proven process structure like SixSigma, DesignThinking ect. or having a good Project Manager which can Strukturkrise a Big impossible Problem into many small solvable tasks (But then its technically not a Team anymore).

Greetings from Berlin (Germany)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.