To start off this reflection, I would like to insert my recap of the video we watched.
Regarding group size:
- smaller groups - better work
- bigger groups - provides diversity in ideas thanks to multiple sources
- one edge, all collaboration components interact with one single instance
- more edges - more components (subgroups), each with it’s own tasks/duties; all collaborate later by combining the subgroups in to bigger subgroups or one big one
- 1 - good for creativity, beggining an innovation process, coming up with ideas
- 2 (even) - good for stabilizing/planning
- 3 (uneven) - desabilized, better for creative processes
- 5+ - not good for creativity, loss of the diversity component (introverts usually fall out of the conversation)
- bigger/whole groups - propagating
Getting to know what people want
Best way to do this is in a group of 3, which is made up by 2 speakers and 1 spectator, who simply listens to the conversation or listens and takes notes, thus maintaining (harvesting) as much information about the topic as possible.
STARR method of systemised reflection:
- S - Situation
- T - Task
- A - Action/Approach
- R - Result
- R - Reflection
The information we received from the video is, in my opinion, very interesting and useful. I’ve been guessing there are some relations between group size and the activity it is suitable for, but I never imagined a systemized description like this. I think it will be of extreme help for our group, because it will help us organize our activities a lot better
(we’ve been having problems with this).
One thing we came up with (in our group) is that we could use the 3-person model and divisions according to if the numbers are even/uneven in our 6-person group very effectively.
Another thing that was of use was the fact that we kept discussing and answering the questions in MeetingWords and on the ProjComm website in subgroups, which helped us to define which working strategy appeals to most of our group members.
As an attempt of answering the main question of the week, I’d say that the optimal group size for design projects would besomewhere around 5 and 7. This size gives the possibility to divide tasks within subgroups and to use the 3-person model of brainstorming ideas. Although, there should be some kind of crowdsourcing involved from outside the actual work group.
Despite all the information we got during the coaching, the most useful part of the day’s work was our Hangout with Maarten, our NGO contact. This was the first actual connection we had and it was of extreme help for defining what exactly he needs from us. The amount of information our group received during this Hangout was too huge for me to fit into this blog, so I hope I will be trusted in terms of the day being HIGHLY productive.
Another good thing about this weeks’ achievements is that I got a contact of a person in Drupal Commons and we defined the best ways to get in touch with Maarten, which is really good, concerning the fact that we had huge problems with receiving insider information and envisioning our goals.