Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coaching product development teams: a conceptual foundation for empirical studies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Global product development teams work in ambiguously complex dynamic networks. Characterization of the distributed work environment includes many factors, including: individuals and sub-teams are geographically distributed; they belong to different organizational cultures; they operate in different time zones and within different cultural and professional-frameworks. From a communication perspective, individual team members may speak different languages and lack a common tongue. Even in these scenarios, project teams are expected to produce quality products and bring them quickly to the market. The design-to-market life cycle has shortened markedly in the past decade in many industries. How do they manage to perform effectively in the face of these many obstacles? Development team “Coaching” has emerged as a guiding force in many project-organized environments. Individuals may have arrived at the role informally, tacitly responding to the needs of teams around them, or they are professionals with formal training as we find in SAP’s “Design Team Services” group (Plattner 2007, personal comunication). We have observed that the coach provides project team members with assistance that ranges from problem solving to moral support. In spite of the growing use of coaching, there is significant confusion about the nature of the role, the attributes of good versus poor coaching, associated terminology and definitions. We report on the development of a conceptual framework for further research in the emerging domain of design engineering coaching. Our efforts began with an extensive literature review that yielded leading candidates for role terminology and the scope of the subject. With that framework in hand, we performed a field assessment (survey) in an industry-academic environment that is noted for the extreme nature of its project-based learning paradigm and deep corporate engagement, including a mixture of industry liaisons and academic advisors who are in coaching roles. We expect the combination of methods to provide common ground for further work and to better explain the issues to students and industry partners. The resulting framework consists of five main roles that design-team coaches have been observed to assume. It is anticipated that our results will help others identify new research questions and apply an expanded set of empirical methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Its detailed description is: “Buffers the team from the influence of external forces or events; helps different work teams communicate with one another; acts as a representative of the team with other parts of the organization…; advocates on behalf of the team to others in the organization;’ and helps to resolve difficulties between different teams.”

  2. Online material is available at: http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~yoram/coaching/CoachREDapp.pdf.

References

  • Argyris C (1977) Double loop learning in organizations. Harv Bus Rev 55(5):115–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer H (2000) Coaching-Kompetenz: Persoenlichkeit und Fuehrungspsychologie, 2nd edn. Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle TA (2005) Improving team performance using repertory grids. Team Perform Manage 11(5/6):179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann RD (1994) Mitarbeiter-Coaching. Der Vorgesetzte als Coach seiner Mitarbeiter (Arbeitshefte Fuehrungspsychologie, Band), 22 edn. Sauer Verlag, Heidelberg

  • Bryman A (2004) Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but appreciative review. Leadersh Q 15:729–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell C, Close P, Duberley J, Johnson P (2000) Surfacing embedded assumptions: using repertory grid methodology to facilitate organizational change. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 9(4):561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo A, Carrizosa K, Leifer L (2003) Design team coaches. In: Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition

  • Cramton CD (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 12(3):346–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2002) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison DR, Hooijberg R, Quinn RE (1995) Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organ Sci 6(5):524–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRue DS, Morgeson FP (2005) Developing taxonomy of team leadership behavior in self-managing teams. Poster session presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA

  • Duarte DL, Snyder NT (2006) Mastering virtual teams, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Eodice M (2000) A theory of requirements definition in engineering design. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, 163 p

  • Eriz O, Leifer L (2003) Facilitating product design knowledge acquisition: interaction between the expert and the team. Int J Eng Educ 19(1):142–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Furst SA, Reeves M, Rosen B, Blackburn RS (2004) Managing the life cycle of virtual teams. Acad Manage Exec 18(2):6–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines BR, Shaw MLG (1996) WebGrid: knowledge modeling and inference through the World Wide Web. In: Gaines BR, Musen M (eds) Proceedings of the tenth knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems workshop, Banff, pp 65-1–65-14

  • Geva U, Van der Loos M (2005) On coaching, forming informal team relationships formally. ME310 course coaching guidelines, Stanford University, d.school

  • Gregoire MB, Arendt SW (2004) Leadership: reflections over the past 100 years. J Am Diet Assoc 104(3):395–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman JR, Wageman R (2005) A theory of team coaching. Acad Manage Rev 30(2):269–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann A, Huber JJ (1991) Coaching: Der Vorgesetzte als Trainer. Hoppenstedt-Technik-Tab.-Verlag, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley J, Benington J (2000) Co-research: a new methodology for new times. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 9(4):463–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds P, Pfeffer J (2003) Why organizations don′t “know what they know”: cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In: Ackerman M, Pipek V, Wulf V (eds) Sharing expertise—beyond knowledge management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 4–26

    Google Scholar 

  • House RJ, Aditya RN (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? J Manage 23(3):409–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck H (1989) Coaching. In: Strutz H (ed) Handbuch Personalmarketing. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 413–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram H, Desombre T (1999) Teamwork: comparing academic and practitioners’ perceptions. Team Perform Manage 5(1):16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RL, Wallace M (2005) Another bad day at the training ground: coping with ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport Educ Soc 10(1):119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jünemann E, Lloyd B (2003) Consulting for virtual excellence: virtual teamwork as a task for consultants. Team Perform Manage 9(7–8):182–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayworth TR, Leidner DE (2001) Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. J Manage Inf Syst 18(3):7–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach JR, Smith DK (1993) The discipline of teams. Harv Bus Rev 71(2):111–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs, vol 1, 2. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Min B, Cha J (1999) The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: a contingent approach. R&D Manage 29(2):153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifer LJ (1998) Design team performance: metrics and the impact of technology. In: Brown SM, Seidner C (eds) Evaluating organizational training. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack J, Stamps J (1997) Virtual teams: reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd B (2005) Coaching, culture and leadership. Team Performance Manage 11(3–4):133–138

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Looss W (1997) Unter vier Augen. Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair A (2008) Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance—implications for quality management theory development. J Oper Manage (in press)

  • Pearce CL, Sims HP Jr, Cox JF, Ball G, Schnell E, Smith KA, Trevino L (2003) Transactors, transformers and beyond: a multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. J Manage Dev 22(4):273–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry TS (1995) How small firms innovate: designing a culture for creativity. Res Technol Manage, March–April, pp 14–17

  • Rauen C (2003) Coaching, 3rd edn. Hogrefe-Verlag, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y (2000) Improving the rationale capture capability of QFD. Eng Comput 16(3–4):236–252

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y, Kapeliuk A (2005) A framework for organizing the space of DSS with application to solving subjective, context dependent problems. Decis Support Syst 41(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich Y, Ullmann G, Van der Loos M, Leifer L (2007) Perceptions of coaching in product development teams. in: CDROM Proceedings of the 16th international conference on engineering design (ICED), The Design Society

  • Rueckle H (2000) Coaching. So spornen Manager sich und andere zu Spitzenleistungen an. Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargent P, Subrahmanian E, Downs M, Greene R, Rishel D (1992) Materials’ information and conceptual data modeling. in: Barry TI, Reynard KW (eds) Computerization and networking of materials databases: third volume, ASTM STP 1140. American Society For Testing and Materials

  • Schmidt G (1995) Business Coaching: Mehr Erfolg als Mensch und Macher. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyoegg A (1995) Coaching. Eine Einfuehrung fuer Praxis und Ausbildung. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/M

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz R (2002) The skilled facilitator—a comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior B, Swailes S (2004) The dimensions of management team performance: a repertory grid study. Int J Prod Perform Manage 53(4):317–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shai O, Reich Y, Rubin D (2008) Creative conceptual design: extending the scope by infused design. Comput Aided Des (in press)

  • Shaw MLG, Gaines BR (1989) Comparing conceptual structures: consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast. Knowl Acquis 1(4):341–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith PG, Blanck EL (2002) From experience: leading dispersed teams. J Prod Innov Manage 19:294–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manage 32(1):29–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman BW (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 63(6):384–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss J (1993) Selbst-Coaching. Persoenliche Power und Kompetenz gewinnen, 4th edn. Junfermann, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Werth L, Markel P, Forster J (2006) The role of subjective theories for leadership evaluation. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 15(1):102–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmore J (1994) Coaching fuer die Praxis—Eine klare, praegnante und praktische Anleitung fuer Manager, Trainer, Eltern und Gruppenleiter. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/ Main

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Yoram Reich

  2. IPH Institut für Integrierte Produktion Hannover gemeinnützige GmbH, Hannover, Germany

    Georg Ullmann

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Machiel Van der Loos

  4. Center for Design Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Larry Leifer

Authors
  1. Yoram Reich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georg Ullmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Machiel Van der Loos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Larry Leifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoram Reich.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Appendices (PDF 1,114 kb)

Appendix A: Final coaching clusters

Appendix A: Final coaching clusters

This appendix provides a detailed description of each coaching cluster (Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13).

Table 9 Detailed characterization of the consultant coaching style
Full size table
Table 10 Detailed characterization of the supervisor/advisor coaching style
Full size table
Table 11 Detailed characterization of the teacher/instructor coaching style
Full size table
Table 12 Detailed characterization of the facilitator coaching style
Full size table
Table 13 Detailed characterization of the tutor/mentor coaching style
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reich, Y., Ullmann, G., Van der Loos, M. et al. Coaching product development teams: a conceptual foundation for empirical studies. Res Eng Design 19, 205–222 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0046-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0046-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation