Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Thinking Research

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

Abstract

Collectives gather online around challenges they face, but frequently fail to envision shared outcomes to act on together. Prior work has developed systems for improving collective ideation and design by exposing people to each others’ ideas and encouraging them to intermix those ideas. However, organizational behavior research has demonstrated that intermixing ideas does not result in meaningful engagement with those ideas. In this paper, we introduce a new class of collective design system that intermixes people instead of ideas: instead of receiving mere exposure to others’ ideas, participants engage deeply with other members of the collective who represent those ideas, increasing engagement and influence. We thus present Hive: a system that organizes a collective into small teams, then intermixes people by rotating team membership over time. At a technical level, Hive must balance two competing forces: (1) networks are better at connecting diverse perspectives when network efficiency is high, but (2) moving people diminishes tie strength within teams. Hive balances these two needs through network rotation: an optimization algorithm that computes who should move where, and when. A controlled study compared network rotation to alternative rotation systems which maximize only tie strength or network efficiency, finding that network rotation produced higher-rated proposals. Hive has been deployed by Mozilla for a real-world open design drive to improve Firefox accessibility. This work first appeared as: Salehi, Niloufar, and Bernstein, Michael S. “Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2.CSCW (2018): 151.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://guidelines.wearedynamo.org.

  2. 2.

    One team lead dropped out of the study at the outset, so the control condition had one fewer team.

References

  • Anagnostopoulos, A., et al. (2012). Online team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 839–848). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. S., et al. (2012). Direct answers for search queries in the long tail. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 237–246). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjelland, O. M., & Wood, R. C. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2015). “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Research Policy, 44(1), 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V., et al. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2014). Growing closer on facebook: changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4187–4196). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., Dang, S., & Dow, S. P. (2016a). “Comparing Different Sensemaking Approaches for Large-Scale Ideation”. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’16 (pp. 2717–2728). Santa Clara, California, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858178. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3362-7.

  • Chan, J., Dang, S., & Dow, S. P. (2016b). IdeaGens: Enabling expert facilitation of crowd brainstorming. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion. CSCW ’16 Companion (pp. 13–16). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818052.2874313. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3950-6.

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M. A. (2001). Group newcomers: From disruption to innovation. Group Facilitation, 3, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999. ISSN: 00018392.

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2013). Teaming to innovate. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Manpower ows and the innovation process. Management Science, 26(11), 1086–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldbaum, C. L., Christenson, T. E., & O’Neal, E. C. (1980). An observational study of the assimilation of the newcomer to the preschool. Child Development, 497–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadon, H. (1988). The newcomer and the ongoing work group. In Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction (pp. 161–175).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 211–220). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., et al. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiss, J., & Nash, D. (1967). The stranger in laboratory culture revisited. Human Organization, 26(1–2), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Introne, J., et al. (2011). The climate CoLab: Large scale model-based collaborative planning. In 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 40–47). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahanbakhsh, F., et al. (2017). You want me to work with who?: Stakeholder perceptions of automated team formation in project-based courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3201–3212). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x ISSN: 1467-9310.

  • Kim, J., Cheng, J., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014). Ensemble: Exploring complementary strengths of leaders and crowds in creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 745–755). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., et al. (2017). Mechanical novel: Crowdsourcing complex work through reaction and revision. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. CSCW ’17 (pp. 233–245). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998196. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0.

  • Klein, M., & Garcia, A. C. B. (2015). High-speed idea filtering with the bag of lemons. Decision Support Systems, 78, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni, A., et al. (2014). Wish: Amplifying creative ability with expert crowds. In Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. (2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. In Handbook of economic organization: Integrating economic and organizational theory (pp. 355– 382).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappas, T., Liu, K., & Terzi, E. (2009). Finding a team of experts in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 467–476). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latora, V., & Marchiori, M. (2001). Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical Review Letters, 87(19), 198701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2014). From problem solvers to solution seekers: dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Schwartz, D. L. (2003). Reaction at the crossroads of cultures. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luther, K., et al. (2015). Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 473– 485). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykourentzou, I., et al. (2016). Personality matters: Balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 260–273). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lykourentzou, I., Kraut, R. E., & Dow, S. P. (2017). Team dating leads to better online ad hoc collaborations. In CSCW (pp. 2330–2343).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahyar, N., et al. (2018). CommunityCrit: Inviting the public to improve and evaluate urban design ideas through micro-activities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., et al. (2017). Putting the pieces back together again: Contest webs for large-scale problem solving.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2009). Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome of collective intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgrath, E. (2000). Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the year, (2nd ed. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions, 15(2), 50–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, D. J., & Wolfe, A. W. (1957). The stranger in laboratory culture. American Sociological Review, 22(4), 400–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, H., et al. (2017). Temporal patterns behind the strength of persistent ties. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority inuence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. Group Process and Productivity, 95, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J. V. (2015). Collective design: Remixing and visibility. In Design computing and cognition (pp. 263–276). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888. ISSN: 0749-5978.

  • Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(5), 563–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, H. (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Stanford: In The institute of design at Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Iowa State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2017). Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 382–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, C., et al. (2010). Rating scales for collective intelligence in innovation communities: Why quick and easy decision making does not get it right.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rink, F. A., et al. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 247–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, N., et al. (2015). We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1621–1630). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, N., et al. Huddler: Convening stable and familiar crowd teams despite unpredictable availability. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. CSCW ’17 (pp. 1700– 1713). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998300. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0.

  • Siangliulue, P., et al. (2015a). Providing timely examples improves the quantity and quality of generated ideas. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 83–92). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siangliulue, P., et al. (2015b). Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 937–945). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siangliulue, P., et al. (2016). IdeaHound: Improving large-scale collaborative ideation with crowd-powered real-time semantic modeling. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 609–624). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., et al. (2009). The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stempe, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685–718. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393872. ISSN: 00018392.

  • Talton, J. O., et al. Exploratory modeling with collaborative design spaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics-TOG, 28(5), 167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tohidi, M., et al. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1243–1252). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wauck, H., et al. (2017). From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A., et al. (2015). A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1637–1648). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A., Huang, S.-W., & Bailey, B. (2014). Voyant: Generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1433–1444). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Cooks or cobblers?: Crowd creativity through combination. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1393–1402). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014a). Distributed analogical idea generation: inventing with crowds. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1245–1254). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014b). Searching for analogical ideas with crowds. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’14 (pp. 1225–1234). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557378. ISBN:978-1-4503-2473-1.

  • Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2016a). Distributed analogical idea generation with multiple constraints. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW ’16 (pp. 1236–1245). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2835201. ISBN:978-1-4503-3592-8.

  • Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2016b). Encouraging “Outside-The-Box” thinking in crowd innovation through identifying domains of expertise. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW ’16 (pp. 1214–1222). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820025. ISBN:978-1-4503-3592-8.

  • Zyskowski, K., et al. (2015). Accessible crowdwork?: Understanding the value in and challenge of microtask employment for people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1682–1693). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Turkers and Mozilla volunteers who participated in, and helped shape this project. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation award IIS-1351131, a Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program grant, and a Stanford Graduate Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, 313 South Hall # 4600, Berkeley, CA, 94720-4600, USA

    Niloufar Salehi

  2. Stanford University, Gates Computer Science 384, Stanford, CA, 94305-9035, USA

    Michael S. Bernstein

Authors
  1. Niloufar Salehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael S. Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niloufar Salehi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Christoph Meinel

  2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Larry Leifer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Salehi, N., Bernstein, M.S. (2020). Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation. In: Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research . Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28960-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation