Design Patterns for Cross-Cultural Computer-Supported Collaboration

Nicole Schadewitz and Timothy Jachna

School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,

Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

sdnic,

Abstract

This paper introduces design patterns for cross-cultural computer-supported collaborative design learning. It presents four patterns derived from an in-depth analysis of interactions between Hong Kong and Korean distributed teams and a cross-cultural comparison of interactions within these teams to interactions in Hong Kong/Austrian and Hong Kong/Taiwanese teams. The first part of the paper shortly reports on the methodology for identifying and articulating the patterns. The second part introduces the pattern collection and four full design patterns. The design patterns concentrate on design solutions that resolve breakdowns in the collaborative interaction between those cultures.

Section 1

Pattern Identification Methodology

To the author’s knowledge, there has been no research conducted that proposes design patterns for addressing cross-cultural differences in collaboration. However, studies in internationalization and localization of products and systems show the need to address such difference in the design of computational systems, products and services (Marcus, 2005). The patterns reported in this paper address a very specific area of cross-cultural collaboration supported through computer technology. Incorporating international collaboration in learning, and especially in design education contexts, has been gaining more attention in research and praxis in recent years (Cheng, 2003). Setting up global virtual teams with students distributed over time and space, diverse in nationality and sometimes profession often serves as a cross-cultural collaborative learning module in design education. This educational environment usually consists of local design teams who are connected to geographically and culturally distant teams. Together global virtual teams are formed. Students work over the time of the course collaboratively on a common project. Although such international design collaboration was found to inform creative processes in teams, misunderstanding and breakdowns in communication were also reported to be more frequent and severe than in homogeneous and collocated teams (Adler, 2002). Such problems in international design collaboration need to be addressed in order to support creative design learning processes. However, knowledge about breakdowns in cross-cultural communication and how to overcome them is scattered across various research domains. Hence, design patterns were thought to be an appropriate medium to communicate knowledge about cross-cultural differences in collaboration and how to overcome breakdowns in communication caused by those differences. Educators and systems developers can use the proposed patterns in this paper to support the development of international distributed design courses.

Research into design patterns in collaboration often employs situated and ethnographically informed methods to identify patterns in the context of collaborative work or learning. Martin et al (2001) consider patterns of collaborative work as a crossover between activity and design patterns. Similarly to these scholars’ approach to identifying patterns, the design patterns presented in this paper derived from a three-year ethnographic study of communications among culturally diverse and geographically dispersed design learning teams. The identification of the design patterns resulted from a cyclic observation and analysis of the data in which observations from one year could guide the following year’s analysis of collaboration. Figure 1 illustrates this process.

Figure 1. Cycles of identification of design patterns in computer-supported collaboration.

An in-depth discussion of the design pattern identification and articulation methodology is given elsewhere (Schadewitz and Jachna, 2007). In particular, the final cycle of deductive analysis of the qualitative data from Hong Kong/Korean collaboration supported the articulation of design patterns that communicate reasons for misunderstandings caused by cultural differences in collaboration and suggested design solutions that bridge those differences in culturally diverse teams. For this analysis, cross-cultural dimensions identified in research over the last 50 years guided the identification and articulation of the design patterns (Kluckhohn, 1950), (Condon and Yousef, 1985), (Hall 1990), (Victor 1992), (Trompenaars and Turner, 1998), (Hofstede, 2001), (Adler 2002). This research utilized nine cultural dimensions to analyse and articulate design patterns. The choice of dimensions was influenced by the inductive analysis of the observations in the first two years of this study. The patterns in this paper refer to following dimensions:

1. Activity Orientation: Achievement Activity cultures are action oriented. Doing something is preferred over doing nothing. Effectiveness can be measured by action. However, Ascription cultures value waiting for the right situation to do something. They value understanding the complexity of a situation and do not act in a hurry.

2. Authority Conception: This dimension refers to the degree of Equality or Inequality among people accepted into a society or group. This also relates to leadership styles, roles and the degree of authority (Hierarchical or Equal) in an organization.

3. Community Aspect: Communities and societies may differ in Collective or IndividualCommunity values orientations. While IndividualCommunity cultures act based on their individual needs, CollectiveCommunity cultures consider the needs of others as much or more than personal needs. In the Asian context, Collectivism also employs a “face” mechanism to defend oneself or others against losing face by means of saving or giving self-esteem and respect. Individualist cultures usually employ low face mechanism.

4. Contextual Communication: This dimension describes a culturally varying phenomenon of how much contextual information is given through verbal or nonverbal language. In High Context Communication, most of the meaning transmitted in the communication process is in the context, i.e. the immediate surroundings or cultural implicit knowledge, while very little is actually in the verbally transmitted message. In contrast, a culture in which most things are explicitly stated is a Low Context Communication culture.

5. Communication and Relation Style: Cultures with Neutral Relations tend to hide their feelings in communication and interaction with others. Those cultures tend to appear “cold”. Expressive Relation cultures do not hesitate to show emotions and affectivity. Specific cultures maintain more neutral relationships than diffuse.

6. Standards and Principles: Standards either build on particular relationships or on universal rules. In Universal Principle cultures rules are the same for everyone in every situation. In Particular Standard cultures, truth and principles are not absolute but dependent on the situation.

7. Technology Orientation: Cultures either tend to accept and favour technology as a positive tool to dominate, structure and master nature (We Control Technology), or cultures may see technology as something rather negative that controls a community (Technology Controls Us), which is not desirable in such a culture because humans should be in harmony with nature.

8. Time Orientation: Monochronic Time societies tend to carry out tasks sequentially without interruptions, whereas in Polychronic Time nations, people are comfortable doing several tasks at once. This dimension is reflected in the rate and flow of information exchange, and in human discourse structures like turn taking, breaks and intervals. Long Time cultures respect traditions and long-term commitments. In Short Time cultures change happens more easily.

9. Uncertainty Avoidance: The level of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty may vary in cultures. Low Uncertainty cultures tolerate various opinions and inconclusive or unsettled discussions. Change is accepted more easily. However, High Uncertainty cultures like to employ rules to control ambiguity and uncertainty. If uncertainty emerges it must be resolved.

The proposed design patterns in the following section will refer to above-mentioned dimensions especially in the sections describing the “Forces” behind the pattern and “Positive Conseqeunces” they work. Interactions observed and analyzed in Hong Kong/Korean teams show similarities in several dimensions. This constituted a certain team culture that was characterized by a Collective Community orientation and Hierarchical Authority orientation. Teams were similar in Long Time orientation, although Hong Kong was strongly influenced by a Short Time orientation of a Canadian tutor. Hong Kong and Korean students communicated High Contextually, while Korean students tended to Lower Contextual Communication styles. Teams differed largely in Polychronic (Hong Kong) and Monochronic Time orientation (Korea). Hong Kong followed Particular Standards whereas Korea tended to employ Universal Standards. While Korean teams Ascribed to the design project, Hong Kong students did anything to Achieve goals set by the tutors. Korean teams perceived Technology as Controlling but Hong Kong had the perception that they were Controlling Communication Technologies. Finally, Korean students had Higher Uncertainty Avoidance than Hong Kong students.

Design Pattern Collection

This section introduces four full patterns and the remaining pattern thumbnails of the collection. The patterns format builds on Alexander’s (1979) original format and adds additional sections such as “Cultural Context” or “Breakdown Scenario” that are relevant to the cross-cultural context of findings presented in the patterns.

Based on this theory-driven analysis of observations discussed in the previous section, eleven design patterns that were recurrently employed to facilitate interactions among members of above-mentioned cross-cultural collaborative design learning teams were articulated. In addition, five design suggestions were recognized, which were not yet implemented. Finally all patterns were compared to interactions observed Hong Kong/Austrianand Hong Kong/Taiwanese collaboration. Figure 2 shows the network of related patterns. This paper will present the patterns (highlighted with black border) (1) GRAND OPENING, (3) INTERNATIONAL HOME, (9) LOCAL VARIATIONS and (10) GLOBAL RESOLUTION in detail, while other patterns and hypotheses are described in pattern thumbnails.

Figure 2. Cross-cultural collaboration design pattern network map

(1) “GRAND OPENING” **

Thumbnail

A grand project opening makes participants aware of the importance of the project, connects them emotionally with the learning community and provides opportunity for first coordination among the distributed local teams.

Cultural Context

Supports Collective Community and Hierarchical Authority orientation cultures. Bridges High and Low Contextual Communication and High and Low Uncertainty Avoidance cultures.

This pattern was observed to work well in Hong Kong/Korean and Hong Kong/Taiwanese collaborations.

Context

A computer-supported collaborative design subject is offered at Universities in different countries. For the majority of students who signed into the course it is the first experience to collaborate with students from other nations and over a distance. Although the Universities are in different countries, the geographical distance and time difference is not very large.

Breakdown Scenario

The international distributed design project is about to start. Local teams were formed and remote teams were assigned to each local team. Now students from local and remote teams need to start working collaboratively on the project. Although all participants know the project brief, it is difficult for the distributed groups to approach the design problem because they are unaware of each other's personal and professional backgrounds, culture, expectations and goals.

Problem

How can one initiate contact between students from universities around the world, who will work on a common design project?

Forces

Collective Community-oriented collaborators need to develop a sense of belonging to the learning community and remote team members in order to trust each other and take responsibility for the project outcome. It is difficult to establish such conditions in a short-term design project over a distance, because teams do not share a common history. If participants miss out the chance to get to know each other at the beginning of the project, breakdowns in communication are more likely to occur later on in the project. In order to facilitate the emergence of common ground, Collective Community-oriented cultures need to have close contact over a period of time. However, holding the international project for the entire time collocatedly is not viable.

Solution

Organize a short, intensive, collocated workshop to which all participants are invited. Help students to gain common ground by introducing the design topic in lectures, by scheduling collaborative activities to let the team establish a common goal, and by organizing social events for the participants to get to know each other.

A memorable beginning of the design project helps students to connect emotionally to the community and team. For this purpose, interweave off and on task activities in the collocated short workshop. Give an opening lecture to establish a shared understanding of the project goals and communicate all necessary project information. Set up a collaboration goal or several milestones that should be reached during the collocated workshop. Thereafter let the local and remote team members introduce each other informally and allow time for social events. At the same time, encourage the participants to explore the design topic to discover similarities and differences among the team members' expectations and visions. Especially in design projects, stimulate multi-modal discussions using mind mapping, sketching, playing games or telling stories to convey design ideas among culturally diverse members. Encourage the emergence of team roles, which each member takes up according to skills and interests. A plan for accomplishing project milestones is aligned to the curriculum given by the course leaders.

Rationale

A grand opening conveys a feeling of importance for Collective Community and Hierarchical Authority cultures, due to which students will feel obliged to take the project seriously and take responsibility. In an intensive and inclusive workshop where formal and informal meetings are intertwined, Collective Community cultures establish a friendly relationship, which is important to fuel a successful collaboration beyond this workshop,which helps High Uncertainty Avoidance cultures reducing ambiguities in collaboration.

In collaboration where students discuss using a second language, reaching shared understanding is facilitated through High and Low Contextual Communication. When misunderstandings occur in verbal communication ideas are written down, drawn or acted out, which balances LowandHigh Contextual Communication. Due to the interrelation of tasks and off-task activities in this workshop, students negotiate a shared understanding by exploring and explaining their design ideas within multiple contexts from which meaning can be inferred.

Resulting Context

Due to restrictions in time and funds not all students might be able to join the collocated workshop, therefore use READY STEADY GO and make sure that all collaborative technologies are set up and ready to use before the participants converge in the local workshop.

In case the grand opening cannot be hold collocatedly, start the design project with a distributed collaborative task that connects sharing and comparing information about the participants’ backgrounds and visions about the joined design project. Use the pattern KNOW ME BETTER for this activity.

Related Work

Researchers who look into intercultural computer-supported collaboration mentioned the effectiveness of collocated workshops as openers for distributed collaboration among heterogeneous groups (Vogel et al., 2001). Design pattern WELCOME AREA (Schümmer and Lukosch 2007) is also related to this solutions.

DP3: “INTERNATIONAL HOME” **

Thumbnail

A virtual group home supports storing, sharing, creating and modifying of design ideas and representations among distributed learning teams.

Cultural Context

Supports CollectiveCommunity and HierarchicalAuthority cultures. Bridges High and LowContextualCommunication, High and LowUncertaintyAvoidance, Particular and UniversalStandard, Monochrome and Polychrome Time oriented cultures.

This pattern was successfully used to support Hong Kong/Korean, Hong Kong/Austrian and Hong Kong/Taiwanese design learning teams.

Context

You established a design learning community using GRAND OPENING. In this intensive workshop atmosphere, teams gained an awareness of the community in general and their international team members in particular. Using READY STEADY GO you might have enabled remote students to monitor community activities using the patterns COMMUNITY WATCH that incorporates remote students who could not attend the GRAND OPENING into the community.

Breakdown Scenario

The global team negotiated general goals and strategies to collaborate in this project in the collocated workshop. However, since not all members were present at the GRAND OPENING, more specific arrangements were left to be negotiated in synchronous communication with the entire team. In this initial conversation team members became suddenly aware of their difficulties in explaining local developments in textual communication only.

Problem

How can one facilitate the continuous production and exchange of design ideas in distributed design learning teams?

Forces

While PolychromeTime and ParticularStandard oriented team members already looked into multiple possible design directions locally and came up with new ideas, MonochromeTime and UniversalStandard orientated members approached the problem more structured and linearly. They started to develop the original concept theoretically. Although this difference in approaching design learning doesn’t have necessarily a negative effect, team members still need to be aware of this variation. However, due to face-saving techniques in CollectiveCommunitycultures, it is considered rude to ask directly what the other side was doing and has accomplished yet. Furthermore, HighContextuallyCommunicating cultures rather infer such information from clues that the environment offers and engage eventually in conversations to gain a common understanding of the next steps. Team members who work on many particular ideas at once can accept a certain degree of uncertainty concerning the process and results. This is not the case for HighUncertaintyAvoidance team members, who want to know about all options in order to gain a universal understanding of the design space and problem. If those cultures design together, there is a need to be aware of local processes and coordinate collaborate efforts in a central location that can be accessed at any time.