Best and Worst Problem Solving Collaborations
Best and Worst Collaborations
- Reflect on your own personal experiences solving problems in collaboration with others, and identify the “best” and “worst” of these experiences. Any size group is appropriate in each case (i.e., 2 members or more), as well as multiple groups in collaboration. Your “best” and “worst” experiences may have occurred within the same group or with two different groups. In determining your “best” and “worst” collaborations, consider both the personal interactions of the group’s members (e.g., were Problem B’s managed poorly or well?) and the ultimate results of each experience (i.e., was the relevant Problem A solved successfully and effectively?).
- Describe and analyze these experiences in detail based on your knowledge of AdaptionInnovation (A-I) theory – i.e., discuss “what happened” and “why it happened” using problem solving concepts. Please be as specific as possible. At a minimum, be sure to discuss the following five key concepts in relation to each experience: style, level, motive, opportunity, and the Paradox of Structure – including the impact these factors (and their variations) had within the collaborations you are describing.
- Finally, discuss any “residual” questions and/or comments that you have about these “best” and “worst” collaborative experiences (e.g., things you are still wondering about or other thoughts you may have about them).
This course focuses on the challenges and benefits of group problem solving. As such, it will be important and useful for you to have several personal “benchmark” experiences to which you can refer as we move along. To this end, please address the lements as part of a cohesive and well-designed
In composing your responses, please pay careful attention to spelling, grammar, punctuation, and clarity of expression. Both the content of your work and its presentation are important and will be evaluated as follows: 80% on quality of content (e.g., completeness, correctness, degree of advanced thinking, etc.); 20% on quality of communication and presentation.