BROADCASTS.com

b'On this week\\u2019s show, we will be discussing the most optimal innovation team size that will generate the most creativity and innovative ideas. This topic is something that would have helped me much if I had studied and learned it early on in my career. I will also discuss eight types of people that every innovation team needs to be successful.
\\n
\\nInnovation Team Size Study
\\nDoes team size have an impact? Recently, I read a study done by Jeanne Brett and Dashum Wang from the Kellogg School of Management and Northwestern University titled \\u201cIf You Want Creativity, Keep Your Team Small\\u201d. This study said that large teams solve problems, and small teams generate new problems to solve. As the teams grew from 1-50, the levels of disruptiveness decreased. The large teams delivered value by developing established ideas and used smaller companies to be disruptive.
\\nThe issues that impacted teams as they got larger were:
\\n
\\n* Relational Loss \\u2013 the perception of team members that they are working with little support from other members
\\n* Social Loafing \\u2013 the tendency of the individual group members to contribute less than they would contribute to working in a smaller group or alone.
\\n* Lack of Development Maturity \\u2013 larger teams tend to look to leaders for direction and motivation. Smaller teams frequently progress to periods of intense productivity fueled by \\u201ctrust-based\\u201d relationships, structures, etc. With five or six people on your innovation team, it is easier to move forward with a common vision for the problem you are trying to solve.
\\n
\\nHow do you address the innovation team size problem? Through utilizing Multi-Team Systems (MTS), which is the process of breaking down a large team into smaller teams with some form of structural network. Implementing this process will bring efficiency and a higher rate of success.
\\nMy Experience with Innovation Team Size
\\nWe will now discuss my experience with team sizes throughout my career. My career started at Deltak, where we developed computer and video-based training. This publishing operation required large teams. Later in my career, I joined Thumbscan, which had mid-sized teams of a couple of dozen people, and the lack of efficiency frustrated me. Through my frustration, I branched off to create a product called PCBoot, which ended up winning product of the year at Computer Dealers Exhibition (Comdex), the precursor to Consumer Electronics Show (CES). It took me by myself a long time to build that product to the point where the parent company ran out of money. Through these times, I realized not only how important a team is, but the size of the team as well.
\\nOther Teams
\\nLet\\u2019s talk about other teams outside of my direct experiences like Apple Macintosh in the 80s. They came out with the Apple 1, 2, and then the 3, which was not very successful because a large team developed it. Apple\\u2019s success came when Steve Jobs hand-picked his MacIntosh team and locked the doors to anyone outside of the team. He separated the team from the larger organization to reduce the risk of large team influence, and it paid off. Now let\\u2019s look at the Manhattan Project. It started with a small team and split up into smaller teams in different areas focused on various aspects of the project. Each team knew what they had to generate to contribute to the larger overall objective, and they were very successful. When teams are broken down and given a specific objective, they become efficient in obtaining their specific goal.
\\nMy Optimal Innovation Team
\\n\\xa0I\\u2019d like to use a religious reference here.'