Rachel Teel

SYSEN 552 SU21

07/18/2021

Reflection and Synthesis #1

Task 1: Applying Creative Style to Products of Design and Invention:
This section will analyze the creative style and creative level of the smartwatch. In the
past twenty years there has been significant advancements in the field of smartwatches. The
first watch that could make and receive phone calls was Samsung’s SPH-WP10, which came out
in 1999 (Gregersen, 2021). This watch did not have any connection to another device and did
not have any of the functionalities that we currently see in smartwatches. It wasn’t until 2004
that the Microsoft SPOT came out and was able to receive information from FM radio
(Gregersen, 2021). The rise of the smartphones led to companies coming out with
smartwatches that received information from the smartphone. Sony, Apple, and Google all
came out with phone compatible smartwatches between 2010 and 2015, which launched the
smartwatch field into a perpetual improvement product path (Gregersen, 2021). Prior to
smartphones and smartwatches, individuals who wanted access to public information needed
to use a PC with internet connect or the radio.
In the smartwatch market, Samsung’s SPH-WP10 was the predecessor to the more
technologically advanced smartwatches. Prior to Samsung’s first phone call capable watch,
there were no watch products that resembled a smartwatch. The launch into phone integrated
watches started with the rise of smartphones and the high demand to always be connected to
technology. The paradigm that existed around smartwatches back in 1999 was that convenient
access to others and public information was desired. A smartwatch would give the user access
to needed information on their wrist and there would be no need to have to search through a
phone to find the information.
In the article entitled “Sorting Out Creativity in Design Assessment” by Jablokow and
DeCristoforo (2008), specific criteria are presented in Table 1 of the article to assist in analyzing
the creative level of a product. The creative level of the smartwatch can be analyzed by looking
at the technical advancement, complexity, and performance quality (Jablokow & DeCristoforo,
2008). The technology involved in smartwatches is very advanced as it involves communication
with another device and/or cellular network. The actual watch itself requires advanced
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

electrical and computer engineering knowledge and skills. The number of components in a
smartwatch is minimal, but the complexity of each component is extensive. The majority of the
product is electrical and computer based, so a lot of the complexity is internal and in very small
components/assembly. The performance quality of common smartwatches is fairly high but can
tend to be impacted by software flaws. Smartwatches tend to run on a computer operating
system, which is susceptible to programming bugs that can impact the reliability of the
smartwatch. The programming bugs that are found can be resolved through a follow up system
update, which improves the performance quality. It allows the performance quality of
smartwatches to be readily maintained as the operating system is fluid and can be adjusted.
Table 1 shows the analysis of the smartwatch using the creative style assessment set
forth in the article by Jablokow and DeCristoforo. The type of technical change for the
smartwatch is more innovative because it is advanced technology that is considered state of the
art for wearable technology. The acceptability of the smartwatch is more adaptive because it is
a fairly easy entrance into the market because the smartphone had already accustomed the
public to the “smart” technology. The feasibility of this product is more adaptive because the
foundation of the smart technology was already present for phones and just needed to be
adapted to watch technology will smaller advancements to connect the two devices. The
smartwatch is more adaptive in terms of efficiency because it is not too far off the line of
meeting the needs of accessibility to information for the user. The smartwatch uses a lot of
technology similar to the smartwatch, but the size scale needed for a watch is much different
than the typical smart phone. This requires the method of developing to be both adaptive and
innovative to achieve the optimal design of existing technology used in a new way. The
knowledge context for the smartwatch involves many different fields but they are fairly
traditional technology fields. Therefore, the knowledge context criteria are both adaptive and
innovative for the smartwatch.
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

Table 1. Creative Style Assessment

More Adaptive -----------------More Innovative
1 2 3 4 5
Type of Technical Change X
Acceptability X
Factors

Feasibility X
Efficiency X
Method X
Knowledge Context X
Totals (by column) 1 4 6 4 0
Mean Score (3) -----------------------------------------X-----------------------------------------

The analysis of the creative style of the smartwatch reveals that this product is a more
evolutionary change. The smartwatch grew from the smartphone, which has very similar
technology while making a technical advancement. There are innovative aspects of the
smartwatch that were needed to transform the smart technology into a small sizes wearable.
Overall, the analysis of the style indicates that the smartwatch is slightly more on the adaptive
side of the spectrum. The Paradox of Structure plays a role in the smartwatch because there is
structure in maintaining connection to current smartphones, but not much structure for the
watch features that can be included. While the smartwatch is a more adaptive product, there
are still aspects where structure is not binding the product direction.

Task 2: Looking Forward – A New Group (and Problem A) to Analyze:

I am part of a project team at work that includes myself and three of my coworkers
(Rob, Seth, and Courtney). This project was started about three years ago and only included
Rob, Seth, and myself at the beginning. My role on the team has slightly shift over the years
from the junior engineer performing the medial tasks and paperwork to keep the project
running, to the mid-level engineer responsible for design, vendor communication, testing, and
more. In reference to this project team, I have several main types of level at different degrees
including, technical writing (high), CAD modeling (high), product design (moderate), FDA
product lifecycle (low/moderate). I have a KAI score of 83, which reflects my more adaptive
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

style and I use coping behavior when needed to perform more innovative tasks. My motive for
this project team is to learn as much as possible and develop an end-product that has the most
benefit to the patient population. This opportunity was presented to me as I also work on the
project team for the predecessor product and members were needed for the next generation
product team.
Rob is an original member of this project team and is the highest-ranking individual on
the team as a Senior Director. Rob is the head of the project team, and his role is mainly
management along with being the voice for the project when it comes to updating the senior
management at the company. Rob has a high level in many topics such as, FDA product
lifecycle, quality documentation, product design, and project management. He has a more
moderate level in personnel management, which has led to issues within the team. Rob is more
adaptive and tends to stick closely to the existing structure and methods. There have been
instances of innovative style, but it appears that naturally is more adaptive. Rob’s motive on
this project is to further advance the pipeline of the company to align with senior management
and to benefit the patients. Rob was also on the predecessor project team and the opportunity
presented itself with his rank to lead the next generation project team.
Seth is an original member of this project team and organizationally reports to Rob. Seth
is also in management and was recently promoted to Director. His role on the team consists of
lead technical expert and generally assigning larger project tasks through the team. Seth has
many high/moderate level areas, such as, mechanical design, product development lifecycle,
technical writing, and project management. Seth seems to work best on the more innovative
side of the spectrum, as he is always going outside the previous ideas and coming up with
unique approaches to basic problems. Seth’s motive appears to be driven by developing the
best product for high throughput manufacturing while providing the best therapeutic effect.
Seth has a lot of product development experience through all lifecycle stages, and given that he
reports to Rob, the opportunity to join this project team presented itself.
Courtney is the newest team member and the most junior engineer on the project. She
only joined the project team a few months ago and currently her role is a lot of basic
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

documentation, coordinating part prototype purchases, and CAD drawing creation/updates.

Courtney is still developing a lot of her skills and has a moderate level in CAD modeling and a
low level in mechanical design and technical writing. It has been challenging to observe her
style preference thus far, but it appears that she may be in the middle of the spectrum. I have
seen adaptive behavior from her in sticking very closely to how previous things were done but
have also seen some unique ideas that stray from the established project paradigm. Courtney’s
motive on this project is more geared towards learning about medical device engineering and
how the products we manufacture benefit patients. Courtney was given the opportunity to join
the project team as we needed another headcount to help with a lot of the basic level tasks and
as she had just started it was an available opportunity.
This project team was formed to develop the next generation product for an ocular
implant that we currently have in clinical trials. The design of the implant needs improvement,
while also maintaining specific similar aspects to the predecessor implant. The problem that
was established at the creation of this team is that the implant needed to hold more drug while
also maintaining key design aspects to the previous product. There are several different types
of level that are needed for this project, FDA project lifecycle (high), mechanical design (high),
ocular surgery strategy (moderate), predecessor product knowledge (high), prototype testing
(low), and microscale manufacturing (moderate). This project is more adaptive as it is the
evolution of a previous project and will need to maintain direct links to that product design.
There is some innovation involved in the design to increase internal cavity volume but as a
whole it falls on the more adaptive side of the spectrum.
The motive that drives the desire to solve this problem is that patients need an implant
that is longer lasting than the current one in clinical trials. Now that the company sees the data
from the predecessor product, the next desire is to provide patients with a longer team solution
to their ocular disease. The opportunity for this project is derived from the predecessor product
and the problem statement for the disease itself is established. This project has presented
many examples of the idea of the problem as a moving target. The initial design developed
increased the internal volume capacity but also impacted the shape of the implant. The
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

manufacturer of that component was then not able to make that part, so new manufacturing
techniques had to be researched. The new design has also presented impacts to the implant
assembly process, which then presented the team with another problem to solve. This project
is still in development, and we have continued to solve one problem which then turns into
another that needs to be solved.
The cognitive gap within the group in regard to level and style is prevalent because of
the wide spread of values, seen in Figure 1. The level difference between Courtney and I is
noticeable, but it does not cause complex issues because we are both still in the learning phase.
The level gap between Rob and Seth compared to Courtney and I is noticeable and requires
attention by both sides. The gap means that there are going to be topics that Rob and Seth talk
about that Courtney, and I do not understand, which means more explanation is required. This
gap has not caused a lot of issues, except that on occasion Rob will swing too far to one side on
his analysis of if we understand or not. He will sometimes over explain basic topics that we
already know and then on the other side he will talk about complex topics and then not explain
any of it. The average of the group level is fairly similar of the project level, so there is not a
cognitive gap affecting the project for that aspect. The four of us are capable of completing all
actions required of the project thus far.
The aspect of style within the project team has a noticeable cognitive gap between Seth
and the other three group members. Seth is more innovative than the rest of the group to a
point that coping behavior is required by both sides in order to work effectively together. Since
the project is more adaptive, it tends to be Seth that has to use more coping behavior. The gap
between Rob, Courtney, and I is small enough to not cause issues and we are able to use more
natural behavior to work on the project. The motive within the team is fairly aligned and
integrates well together, Courtney and I are still learning and Seth and Rob as managers
generally coach others well. I have found that within this project team the motive is driven by
the goal of the company to help the public with ocular diseases. There is the underlying desire
to help others and make the best products that are effective and safe. I have not seen any
issues with motive on this project within the members and the project itself. I have not seen
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

any impacts of cognitive gap on opportunity in our team that have caused unsolvable issues.
There has occasionally been an issue where Rob or Seth focuses too much on their opportunity
to impress senior management, but they have all been resolved on their own.

Group Members: Rob (R1), Seth (S), Rachel (R2), Courtney (C)

Group <-------------------C------------------------------R2------------------------R1----S-------->
Level

Problem A <-----------------------------------------------------------Project-------------------------->

Group <-----------------------------R1-------R2---C-------------------S-------------------------->
Style

Problem A <--------------------Project----------------------------------------------------------------->

Figure 1. Cognitive Gap Analysis

One area of improvement within the team is in the personal relationships within the
team members. I believe that the root of some of those issues is the difference in level for
personnel management and emotional intelligence. These issues may also be influenced by
style, as Rob seems to usually be involved and he is more adaptive than the team as a whole.
One technique to narrow that level gap in personnel management that I have tried is proposing
to Seth (my boss) that we discuss as a team our individual communication preference.
Unfortunately, my proposal has not been used yet and I am hoping at some point we do talk
about communication preferences so that we can best collaborate together.
Rachel Teel
SYSEN 552 SU21
07/18/2021

References
Gregersen, E. (2021, January 14). Smartwatch. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/smartwatch
Jablokow, K. W. and D. DeCristoforo. Sorting Out Creativity in Design Assessment. Proceedings
of the ASEE 2008 Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 2008. Paper
#AC 2008-53. 18 pp.