Prototypes as identity markers: The double‐edged role of prototypes in multidisciplinary innovation teams

Abstract

Prototypes play a powerful role in facilitating the work of multidisciplinary innovation teams, but if not properly managed, they may inhibit innovation processes. This paper inquires into the tensions that exist around the use of prototypes in multidisciplinary teams. We studied the relationship between work identities (related to teams and subgroups within teams) and prototypes with a field study of a multidisciplinary team in an emergency department, in charge of redesigning the layout of the unit. Results show that different values of subgroup identities are reflected in the solutions devised by the team. These values become salient through the prototype; that is, the prototype is an identity marker, especially when it is characterized by higher tangibility, fidelity and validity. When the prototype is an identity marker, it sparks conflict within the team. We also find that a superordinate team identity can help in solving conflictual interactions. Our analysis contributes to revealing how prototypes as identity markers can both inhibit and facilitate the innovation process of multidisciplinary teams. We offer theoretical and practical implications for managers, team members and designers working in multidisciplinary teams.

Intergroup power dynamics during the idea journey: A two‐way relationship between power and social identity

“…It can also implement a subtle mix of different forms of coactive power, such as the combination of physical artefacts (e.g., prototypes) and discursive practices, to initiate a collective reframing of ideas and their coconstruction. Prototypes are already acknowledged as identity markers that facilitate communication across disciplines within a team (Bechky, 2003; Dosi et al, 2020). Therefore, our results extend this beneficial role to wider social interactions with external audiences.…”

“…To reduce intergroup distinctiveness and avoid misunderstandings, individuals should define new overarching identities based on distinct attributes (Bechky, 2003; Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2010). This is particularly true for multidisciplinary teams (such as creative teams) characterized by subgroups that define themselves with occupation‐derived values and beliefs, which must create a minimum level of commitment and coordination (Dosi et al, 2020) with one another and with audiences. Cross‐cutting identities where the values of two or more groups partially overlap can also be defined within organizations and at their boundaries with external audiences (Ashforth et al, 2008; Brewer & Pierce, 2005).…”

“…For decades, the innovation management literature on creativity and the social psychology approach to creativity has developed in parallel. Recently, some researchers in the field of innovation management have reconciled both approaches and argued for the importance of social F I G U R E 2 Coactive power and cross-cutting identities processes for creativity, which emphasizes the role of group identification mechanisms (e.g., Dosi et al, 2020;Schweisfurth & Raasch, 2020). However, the social identity approach to creativity is mainly supported by experimental studies (Haslam et al, 2013), and the particular context of organizations, which enables the coexistence of different identities, has been overlooked (Paolino, 2020).…”

From lone wolves to members of the pack: Exploring interpersonal identity work within identity workspaces

“…An ultrasound scanner at the CH (Arcmed) was seen as representing the ability to offer advanced hospital services, and documentation (at Health) related to washing and dressing patients suggested that the CH was a place “like‐home, where we care.” Resources became boundary objects influenced by identity dynamics (e.g. Bechky, 2003; Dosi et al, 2020), around which the community discussed collective practices that endorsed the new organizational arrangement as identity workspace. Managers should assess equipment, documents, routines, and norms not only in terms of conventional criteria—their economic convenience, efficiency, usefulness, but also in terms of the opportunities they offer to the realization of individual aspirations and goals.…”

“…An ultrasound scanner at the CH (Arcmed) was seen as representing the ability to offer advanced hospital services, and documentation (at Health) related to washing and dressing patients suggested that the CH was a place "likehome, where we care." Resources became boundary objects influenced by identity dynamics (e.g Bechky, 2003;Dosi et al, 2020),. around which the community discussed collective practices that endorsed the new organizational arrangement as identity workspace.…”