🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92303.174205MD2098A@auvm.american.edu> Milin M. Desai  
<MD2098A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>The past ideas and theories about groupwork seem to be changing along
>with time. Until now, a member of a group was expected to work on a  
single task
>with selected members, till the completion of the project.
>
>what confuses me is the evolution of new and more complex theories, which
>suggest that a member should work part-time on multiple projects. How can  
a
>member of a group maintain commitments and loyalties towards other groups  
and
>projects and still be expected to work efficiently ?
>
>Any kind of response will be greatly appreciated.

As others have responded, it seems to be more the norm that members of
a group work part-time on multiple projects. In a participant-observer
study I conducted in an architectural firm it was obvious that everyone
from the draftperson to the principal architect worked on multiple
tasks. What was interesting, however, is how people at different positions
in the firm 'switched contexts'. As you can imagine higher-up employees
(Associates, partners, Job captains) switched more rapidly while
new-comers, CAD operators, draftspersons committ to a project several
days in one straight shot and then switch. I found a link between
the investment in artifacts and the flexibility to switch tasks.
That is, if a CAD operator opens up a drawing and starts working then
she/he is less likely to switch over quickly to another CAD project.
Once immersed in a 'world of artifacts' it is harder to switch over.
Managers, however, do more decision-making tasks and problem solving
that does not require the creation, development of extensive artifacts.
So they can switch contexts much faster.

--
Wassim M. Jabi                            (313) 936-0229
Doctoral Program in Architecture, University of Michigan
2000 Bonisteel Boulevard  Ann Arbor  Michigan 48105-2313
wjabi@libra.arch.umich.edu             NeXTMail-friendly