From Solid Waste to Value Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Managing the team in an integrated R&D Management Model

Sampaio, C. Martins, S. Silva, F. Almendra, R.

Retirado de:

RESUMO: Este trabalho apresenta a evolução dos estudos previamente descritos em outro trabalho (SAMPAIO et al, 2015), no qual os autores apresentaram uma proposta metodológica de gestão da equipe de P & D, como parte de um modelo integrado mais amplo de P & D sobre inovação de valor Do problema dos resíduos sólidos (modelo FLOWS). As principais questões e métodos desse estudo permanecem os mesmos, mas o modelo conceitual linear preliminar apresentado nesse artigo foi melhorado, tendo agora uma nova configuração que é apresentada e discutida aqui. A melhoria mais relevante é a adoção do conceito de equipes visuais e o modelo de desempenho da equipe proposto por Drexler e Siebbet (2008).

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Resíduos têxteis, inovação de valor, métodos orientados para o design, pesquisa e desenvolvimento, gerenciamento de equipes.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the evolution of the studies previously described in an another paper (SAMPAIO et al, 2015), in which the authors presented a methodological proposal for managing the R&D team, as part of a wider integrated model for R&D on value innovation from the problem of solid waste (FLOWS Model). The main questions and methods of that study remains the same, but the preliminary linear conceptual model presented in that article have been improved, having now a new configuration that is presented and discussed here. The most relevant improvement is the adoption of the visual teams concept, and the team performance model as proposed by Drexler and Siebbet (2008).


KEYWORDS: Textile waste, value innovation, design-oriented methods, research & development, team management.

1. Introduction: the problem of Solid Waste and the need for a structured approach to R&D

This paper is dedicated to present a proposal for a R&D methodological model that can be used to investigate and develop solutions for the problem of solid waste, using a design approach to convert it in value innovation, in the form of new materials, products and business models. The study was supported by two main pillars: the first one is the empirical experience coming from a R&D project carried out in a Brazilian university, that investigated the specific problem of polyamide 66 (PA66) and used a design-based approach to solve it; the second one is a wider and deeper scientific investigation on the subject, carried out during a doctoral study by one of the authors of this paper, and that was supervised by the other three.
So, the learnings from the R&D project were used in an inductive way, in order to generalize it as much as possible concepts, principles, methods and tools that could be used to build a wider methodological model to manage the R&D process and people, as well as its final products.

2. Empirical Study about the Problem of Synthetic Textile Waste

According to ABRAVEST (2010), the production of synthetic fabrics has shown significant growth in recent years worldwide, spurred by increased consumption, with significant environmental impacts. Most of the global production is presently located in China (49 %), followed by India (7%), Pakistan (3.8%) and Brazil (2.9%). In Brazil the average waste generation is estimated by the 26.000 Brazilian industries to be about 1400 kg/year per company (SEBRAE, 2004). The donation of waste is a common practice in the Brazilian garment industry, and there was in the last years an excess of waste offered in the market (Sampaio et al, 2014). Although the garment sector does not generate solid remainder of great striking power, these remainders are generated in large volume. The toxicity of the remainder is not significant, but the high volume affects other environmental variables, such as CO2 emissions and non-renewable natural resource exhaustion, and that is why the textile waste causes a critical environmental impact (Martins et al, 2011).
The most common destinations for clothing discarded during production or post- consumption is the reuse, recycling, incineration and sending to landfill. According to Allwood et al (2006, in WRAP, 2010) in the UK, for example, annually 1.12 million tons of clothes (30 kg/capita) are discarded, representing about 8 % of the total weight of household waste (WRAP, 2012). Of this amount, 350,000 tonnes (31%) go to landfills, 47% are reused in other countries (34 %) or in the UK itself (12%), 14% is recycled and 7% is incinerated, as pointed out by Oakdene Hollins Ltd et al (2006, in WRAP, 2010).
Regarding the recycling of textile waste, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) studies done by ERM (2002, in WRAP, 2012) showed significant reductions in energy use and in emission of greenhouse gas (Korhonen & Dahlbo 2007 in WRAP 2012). The benefits of recycling compared to incineration were also identified. In general, recycling can occur in two ways (Bastian, 2009): in or out of the process. In this sense, the creation of new materials from recycled textile waste involves recycling out of the process as the materials to be developed are not necessarily incorporated back into the clothing production. Instead, they can integrate other processes, such as products for construction industry, architecture, decoration, accessories, footwear, gardening and so on.
In the case of synthetic textile materials, one difficulty for recycling is the variety of materials available, being polyester and polyamide the most significant. A study done by Nike (2013) pointed PA66 as the worse environmental performance material among the 25 most commonly used materials for the company. Nevertheless, there are already initiatives for recycling polyamide 66 (Bodrero & Cansell, 1999; Booij et al, 1997; Frentzen et al, 1997; Kassera, 1998).
Polyamide 66 (trade name nylon 66) is used in the manufacture of various compound fabrics such as Lycra, Cordura, Coolmax, Thermolite and Supplex that use different materials in its composition, which further complicates recycling. They are widely used by Brazilian manufacturers of clothing; however, there is not an adequate knowledge on how to properly dispose this material waste.
A recent study carried out by Brazilian researchers [1] indicated the waste of raw materials, lack of proper disposal and lack of appreciation of the waste as major problems concerning the use of Supplex. The waste was usually donated to artisans, or collected by a collection company, which was responsible for the destination (Martins eta al, 2013). So, a partnership with the UEL Chemistry Department was established to develop new forms of recycling synthetic textile waste containing PA66, that were applied in the development of new materials, products and business models. This partnership has been particularly successful, and the preliminary results showed that Supplex is a challenging material in terms of recycling, and that this can be done in an environmentally appropriate manner.


2.1. Team aspects from the Empirical Study

The way the team was organised in the R&D project described seemed to be determinant for the success of that study. The team consisted of 15 researchers, including three professors (two of Design and one of Chemistry) and 12 students (11 of Design and two – a master and an undergraduate - of Chemistry). The students were organized in eight sub-teams, each one being responsible for a specific deliverable of the project:
· Sub-team 1 - Chemistry experiments for developing new materials;
· Sub-team 2 - Data collection on the environmental aspects of PA66 waste;
· Sub-team 3, 4 and 5 – new products development;
· Sub-team 6 and 7 – new business models development;
· Sub-team 8 – Graphic design support for the project communication.
To form the sub-teams, the coordinators used some tools to identify personal characteristics of the students, and thus, identified the students with some trace of leadership among them. These leaders were then defined and served as the communication connectors between the teams and the project coordinators. This empirical investigation pointed out some interesting results related to the team management, including:
· The importance of each design sub-team be responsible for the entire process of product development;
· The relevance of identifying the personality traces and potential leaders for the sub-teams;
· The need of developing specific competences on the subjects that each sub-team assumed (product design, business model design, environmental issues);
· The importance of developing specific competence in using visual tools along the R&D process.
This empirical study also pointed out the lack of knowledgement in team management that should be improved by means of additional research. As a result, relevant approaches for the team management were identified in the literature, that will be presented and discussed on the item 3 (The R&D team).

3. Research Questions and Hypothesis

The main questions that emerged from the empirical study just described include: “How should be the team?”, “How to select the right members for the team?”, “How to motivate them?” “How to manage their work?”, “what is the most suitable structure for organizing their work?”, “how they must interact?”, “How to evaluate and reward their efforts and results?”, and even “how to stimulate them to think about the project in a more entrepreneur way, considering eventually building their own businesses models based on the findings of the research?”.
Considering these questions, we proposed that a structured management process can become the R&D activities more effective and efficient. In addition, we consider that the R&D team is one determinant factor of success for the R&D process, and so, must be included in the management process here proposed. 

4. Adopted approaches for the problem

The R&D process here proposed combines concepts, principles, guidelines, methods and tools of three main knowledge fields: Design Thinking, Design for Sustainability (DfS) and Value-based Business Models. They will be further explained hereafter, as well as their implications for the team management.

4.1. Design Thinking as a Value Innovation Approach for the Problem of Solid Waste

This R&D project emphasized the role of design to solve the environmental problems of textile waste (environmental values) and, at the same time, generating and delivering values for users (both emotional and functional), organizations (profitability, brand value, public recognition, and improvements in the internal processes). In the design thinking context, the creation and deliver of value is how the concept of innovation is well understood. So, innovation can be seen in terms of the interactions (“innovation spaces”) that occur in these three main dimensions (Figure 1), as pointed by Brown (2010).


Fig. 1 – The three dimensions of design thinking, and its “innovation spaces”: functional, emotional and of process

(Adapted from Brown, 2010).


Beyond the innovation spaces previously described, an effective R&D team management can also promote gains from other three specific types of interactions:
· Enriching and strengthening the way the R&D team and organizations (frequently as businesses) interact to produce innovations;
· Enriching and strengthening the way the R&D team and users (frequently as consumers) interact to produce a deeper understand of behaviours, attitudes, habits, needs and desires;
· Improving the internal processes and activities related to R&D by the inclusion of other knowledge areas (as design and sciences), and thus promoting an effective group learning.
The implementation of a design thinking-based process requires a specific mindset and characteristics for the team; these elements were studied by Kelley (2005), who proposed some specific roles for the innovation process based on design, so called “Ten Faces of Innovation”. These roles will be explained later on this paper.

4.2 Design for Sustainability (Dfs) – Life Cycle Design (Lcd)

In this process model, sustainability issues were considered by following the idea of product-system life cycle and its main phases (preproduction, production, distribution, usage and disposal) and five main strategies – or life cycle design strategies - that can be applied to this life cycle: minimization in the use of material, use of low impact materials, extension of the product life cycle, extension of the material life cycle and ease of dissassembly (Manzını & Vezzolı, 2002). Each one of these strategies are deployed in specific sets of substrategies appliable to each phase of the life cycle, depending on the product-system. Sustainability topic also included specific guidelines for the material, coming from the fields of Chemistry (Green Chemistry Principles) and Engineering (Green Engineering Principles).
So, to include the environmental concerns in the R&D project is necessary to develop in the team specific competence to deal with these issues. This must include not only theoretical knowledgement, but also ability on how to use DfS methods and tools.

4.3 Business models and value innovation (and its Design)

The concept of business model here adopted is strictly related to the concept of value innovation, that can encompass many types of value, e.g. functional or emotional value for the users, economical value for users and companies and environmental value for the planet. Value innovation can (and it is common) start from technological innovations, but differ from that in terms of the aim; in fact, in value innovation it doesn´t matters the technology itself, but the benefits (values) obtained when using it. So, to develop successful value-based business models, the researchers searched for a tool that could be at the same time comprehensive and easy to use, and identified one particularly suitable for their work: the Canvas Business Model, developed by Osterwald and Pigneur (2011), a visual-based tool that allow to define and visualize the main important elements of a business in an only board, using simply stick notes and pens.
In order to develop business models is necessary for the team to master a set of knowledge, abilities and attitudes both emphatic and iterative, because the process of developing new business model is strictly related to the design thinking process. So, the innovation roles (Kelley, 2008) are especially important for the business models design, among other approaches for the team that will be explored in the next section. Beyond design thinking and its influence in the team, other four relevant approaches for the teamwork were identified and studied: adhocratic groups, creative groups, and great groups, visual teams and the concept of learning styles.

4.4 The R&D Team

It can be noted that all these three forms of benefits are strictly related to the work process the R&D team, whether in the form as it relates to the organizations or users, or even in the form of develop its activities to produce and manage new knowledge and innovations.

4.5 R&D Team as an Adhocratic form of Organization

Drucker (1999) considers that innovation requires systematic effort and high level of organization, as well as decentralisation and diversity, in opposition to the centralized planning. This implies that a bureaucratic structure cannot be the best form of organization for creative groups; in fact, the literature pointed out that the most successful innovation groups in history have been structured in a very flexible and non-hierarchical way. The most common models of organization with these characteristics have an organization structure called “adhocracy”.
Adhocracy is a term firstly used by Bennis and Slater (1964) referring to the military “task-forces” in that time, and popularized by Tofler (1970) who considered this as the organizational model of the future. Waterman (1990) defined adhocracy as any organization that breaks with the bureaucratic processes, simplify the process and adapts to the situations as they shown. Some of the main characteristics of adhocracy are:
· Organic organizational structure, based on cooperative groups and teams;
· Temporary positions and tasks;
· Non-hierarchical and decentralised organization;
· Modular design, formed by specialists;
· Structure is undone when the goals are achieved;
· Minimum formalization of procedures and behaviours;
· Minimum standardization of processes;
· Specialization of the work based on the member’s formation and competence;
· Coordination and control by the own group;
· Ill-defined roles, subject to readequations;
· Communications sometimes incomplete.

Adhocratic organizations, in two main forms: “new adhocracy” and “J-form”. “New adhocracy” is a model strongly based in the renaissance cooperatives described before, and influenced many organizations in the creative arts, like cinema, music record companies, scenic arts and others, and recently, journalism and professional sports (Dolan, 2010). The R&D groups in the universities, mostly, also have worked according to this model, emphasizing the focus in the goals and targets, low level of formality and bureaucracy and friendliest work environments.
Similarly, the “J-form” teams are also characterized by the aspects described above, but with an own characteristic: the search for consensus in the decisions, that are taken only after an exhaustive dialogue and discussion, with respect for all the opinions and ideas, in a non-conflicting process; this is a significant difference from the western groups, and the success of Japanese companies like Toyota and Sony seems to confirm the value of this approach (Dolan, idem).
Another interesting way to see the creative groups and teams is using the Mintzberg (in Dolan, 2010) analogy with the sports teams, as he says: “I must, however, complain about baseball. That strikes me as the professional bureaucracy, football as machine bureaucracy, rugby as adhocracy, and our beloved hockey as (sometimes) a political arena”.
This analogy was also used by Drucker (1999), which argues that there are at least three types of teams, according to the type and level of leadership, interaction and flexibility of roles, among other aspects: baseball teams, football teams and tennis doubles. The first is a very static organization, strictly controlled by the coach, and wherein each player occupies a specific position; the second demands a more dynamic movement of team members, but is also dependent of the orientations of the coach, who defines the strategy; the last is a more flexible and non-hierarchical structure, what demands high level of articulation and autoregulation among the two members. Each one of these forms can be used by the creative teams, depending on the context, as found in the literature, but the last two were identified most frequently by the authors.


4.6 Creative Groups and Great Groups

Bilton (in Dolan, 2010) comments that the idea of creative groups goes back to the renaissance time in Europe, during the period between the 14th and 17th century, when groups of artisans, painters, sculptors, architects and other professionals were formed to carry out projects commissioned by the church or by the nobles (Dolan, 2010). Advancing to the 18th century, De Masi (2003) identified a lot of groups formed in different areas of knowledgement which he called “creative groups”, and which had many common characteristics as: strong, but charismatic and non-authoritarian leadership, high sense of mission and responsibility, high level of involvement and motivation, respect for the diversity, mutual confidence, flexibility, privileged spaces and moments to dialogue and discussion, high level of informality in the relationships, high level of creativity and stimulating environment for that, among many other aspects.
Creativity, in particular, it was one of the central factors of these groups, and have been studied from several approaches since the end of the 18th century. De Masi (idem) identified that the scientific researches on this theme started with a very biological and hereditary approach in the end of the 18th century, and strongly focused in the individuals, not the teams. Since then, the interest in creativity increased, and gradually included psychological, anthropological, socio-environmental, systemic, epistemological and sociological aspects. The scientific investigation on creativity gained importance specially after the 2nd war, with the emergence of the big North-American companies, and the exodus of some of the best scientists from Europe to USA, due to the war (De Masi, idem).
The previous emphasis on individual creativity in the first decades of the 20th century has changed to an increasing focus on the creativity of groups, because of the growing need for innovation in the organizations. So, the large knowledgement about creativity accumulated along the previous years, especially in the psychology, anthropology and sociology were largely used by the American companies to form, enable, empower and manage the teams, what was significant in the success of the USA companies in the post-war years (De Masi, idem).
All in all, on the other side of the planet another types of creative team also emerged, in a very different context: The Japanese companies, mostly destroyed by the 2nd war. Inspired by the need, but also by an old social tradition of collectivism, dialogue and search for consensus in the decisions, emerged the J-form teams; in fact, this model of organization was one of the foundations of the very revolutionary Toyota Production System (Dolan, 2010).
Specifically, in terms of the R&D teams, Drucker (1987) pointed out that the first research laboratory inside an industry it was created in 1872 by Hefner-Alteneck, a Siemens engineer, with the aim to create new products and processes, and also to identify new applications and markets for them; for that time, this can be seen as a very innovative proposal, and also inspired the study presented in this paper.


4.7 Visual Teams

Once the R&D process is here closely treated with the design thinking approach that is strongly based on the use of visual methods and tools, it seems to be plausible that adopting a more visual way for managing the R&D process can improve the efficacy and efficiency of it. Fortunately, professionals and researchers have investigated the visual approach for teams, and the work of Drexler and Sibbet (2008) is a good and useful example of that. They propose a specific model for managing the team using a more visual-based process, the Team Performance Model, that is compound of seven steps (Figure 2):
1. Orientation – Aims to help the team members on the question of “Why am I here?”;
2. Trust building – Focus on promote the trust among the team members by answering the question “Who are you?”;
3. Goal clarification – It helps the team members to understand the aims of the project by the question “What are we doing?”;
4. Commitment – This step is about the process to achieve the results in the project, resumed in the question “How we do it?”;
5. Implementation – The execution of the process, including the timeline, tasks and roles, that is, “Who does what, when and where?”;
6. High performance – This step is focused on to leverage the performance of the team to a higher level, a “Wow!” performance;
Renewal – The last step is about assessing the process and its results, celebrating the team success and evaluating if it is better to continue the project or not, answering the question “Why continue?”.


Fig. 2 – The Team Performance Model, as proposed by Drexler and Sibbet, 2015.

According to Drexler and Sibbet (2008), the four first steps are related to “Creating” the team, while the last three are dedicated to “Sustain” them team performance. Due to the simplicity and clarity, this model provided a useful foundation for the R&D model that is proposed in this paper; in fact, the seven steps were embodied in the four parts of the Team Management module that integrates the R&D model proposed (Item 4.2).

4.8 Belbin´S Team Roles and Kelley´S Innovation Team Roles

The variety of personal profiles is pointed by Belbin (1993) as a relevant factor to success when forming teams. For him, the team must be formed considering the complementarity of roles, what allows a better balance between strong and weak points of the team. Belbin proposed that the ideal team demands three groups of roles, as follows:
· Roles oriented to action. Former, Implementer and Finisher;
· Roles oriented to people. Coordinator, Team worker and Resources-investigator;
· Brain roles. Evaluator-monitor and Specialist.
Belbin also defended the importance both of self-evaluation and evaluation by others as a way to improve the team as a whole. In a later work, Kelley (2005) proposed a similar approach based on roles, but centred in the innovation process. This demands a confluence of competences to be carried out. According to Kelley (idem), these competences can be seen in terms of tem specific roles (personas) organized in three distinct categories, and who participate in the different moments of the process:
· Learning roles. Anthropologist, Experimenter and Cross-pollinator;
· Organization roles. Hurdler, Collaborator and Director;
· Construction roles. Experience Architect, Set Designer, Caregiver and Storyteller.
These roles were incorporated in the proposed R&D Team module, in the form of tools for selecting and training the team members.


4.9 R&D team as a Learning Organization

The final products from the R&D process are the innovations produced by the team. These innovations (materials, products, business models) are, ultimately, forms of knowledge, that must be managed in an appropriate manner. Also, this must result in new learnings both for the team, the organization and other partners of the R&D project.
According to Argyris and Schön (1978) organizational learning is a permanent reflexive and questioning process, that the organization members use to develop shared knowledge, based on the learning from each other. The final goal is to develop the team ability of “learn to learn”, also called deutero-learning, overcoming the steps of single loop learning (individual learning based only on explicit knowledge) and double-loop learning (changing the mental models of the organization and its members from the cultural and objective knowledge). Senge (1990) proposes that, to build a learning organization, the group and their members must be proficient in five disciplines:
· Systemic thinking. The ability of understand that, as in the nature, the human events are interconnected, and it is important to pay attention not only in the parts of the system we are in, but also in the whole.
· Personal mastery. It starts by clarifying what is really important for the individual, its aspirations, because this is the basis of any human entrepreneurship.
· Mental models. The set of predefined ideas, opinions, generalizations an images which we have about the ourselves, the others and the world, and that influences our behaviours and attitudes.
· A common goal definition. It is essential to create and communicate a clear vision about the future to inspire people, and this one of the first obligations of any leader.
· The group learning. It depends on the individuals learning, but goes beyond them, due to the synergy of intelligences. It starts with dialogue and recognition of interaction patterns that hinder it.
Since these disciplines are mastered, the innovation process can happen. Following the idea of learning organization, Beckman and Berry (2007), based on Owen (1997), proposed that innovation process can be seen as a learning process. If Owen proposed that the innovation process include both identification and selection actions of problems and solutions, Beckman and Berry pointed out that, to perform these actions, are needed at least four learning styles: Divergent, Assimilative, Convergent and Accommodating (Figure 3).


Fig. 3 – The four learning styles (Beckman and Berry, 2007), based on the innovation process of Owen (1997).


The process proposed by them is based on two polarities axes, that put the activities in terms of abstract-concrete and analysis-synthesis, resulting in four quadrants of actions: reflexive observations about the context (concrete information) and conceptual framing of insights (in abstract level) which are basically analytic steps, and ideas imperative (still abstract) and solutions creation (active and concrete experimentation), that demands ability of synthesis. These learning styles are relevant for defining and managing the team roles for the innovation process and, specifically in this study, for the R&D team. So, they were used as reference guidelines to put the members in the right functions along the R&D process.

5. Results

In this section, we will briefly present the integrated model for managing R&D projects that focus on converting the problem of solid waste in value innovations. This is just to situate the place that team occupies in this model, as one of the five main elements to be managed by the R&D head. Next, the R&D team module will be presented and explained in detail.

5.1 Proposal of an Integrated R&D Model: Flows Model

The integrated R&D model (FLOWS Model) was built considering three fundamental elements (or the 3 P´s) that forms an organization, and especially an innovation-focused organization: people, process and products. In the proposed model, people are represented by the team and the leader, each one put in a specific module. Process management have a specific module to it, as well as the final products, here represented by knowledge and learning resulting from the R&D project. A fifth dimension was added to the model, solely dedicated to the project planning; indeed, this is the first module of the R&D model. The five modules and their subparts are illustrated in the Figure 4.


Fig. 4 – The methodological model for managing the R&D activities proposed by the authors.


5.2 The Final Model for the R&D Team

The final structure proposed for the R&D team management is organized in four distinct parts (Figure 5), and contains a set of tools in order to facilitate the work of the R&D leader. The first part is dedicated to search for the right people for the team (Searching); the second part aims to help the challenge of preparing and giving conditions to the team (Preparing and Nurturing); the third part is to facilitate the coordination of the team in the execution of the R&D project (Coordinating), and; the fourth part is to help the manager on assessing the results of the team work and managing the change (Assessing, Rewarding, Celebrating and Changing).


Fig. 5 – The structure for the model for the R&D team, organized in four parts and its related toolboxes.


Each of these four parts contains sets of tools – or toolboxes - which can be used to operationalise the activities related to the team.

The toolboxes and tools
The Searching part has only a tool (Recruiting & Selecting), that is destined to facilitate the recruitment and selection of the right members for the team. The Preparing & Nurturing part has four tools:
· Knowing, Guiding & Trust Building
· Clarifying Vision & Goals
· Organizing, Creating Commitment & Enabling
· Providing Resources, Structure & Communication
Like the first part, Coordinating part also includes only a tool, Managing processes, Tasks & Emotions.
The last part - Assessing, Rewarding, Celebrating and Changing – is also formed by a toolbox, with the same name. The R&D team model include more than 120 tools, organised in toolboxes and their subgroups, as showed in the Table 1.


Table 1 – Parts, toolboxes, subgroups and tools for the R&D team management.






Recruiting & Selecting


Defining requirements

Defining benefits

Defining recruitment channels

Internal & external indications

Recruitment materials

Candidate Databank

Selecting (Personal Level)

Personality type test MBTI

Emotional intelligence test

Eysenck test

DISC test

Gardner´s intelligence types test (EQ)

Logical intelligence test (IQ)

Integrity test (ethics potential)



Group dynamics

Selecting (Interpersonal Level)

Cordiality test

Leadership test (leader table)

Interpersonal intelligence test (Goleman et al)

Interpersonal intelligence test (Gardner)

Johari Window characteristics test

Group dynamics

Selecting (Creativity Level)

Roles test (Belbin)

Innovation roles test (Kelley)

Last 30 days’ creativity history test

Portfolio evaluation

Group dynamics - solving problem

Group dynamics – completing figures

Group dynamics – cube secret

Group dynamics – light switch

Group dynamics – empty rectangle

Group dynamics – uses for an object

Preparing & Nurturing

Knowing, Guiding & Trust Building


Knowing & Guiding

Motivation/hygiene factors (Herzberg)

Alderfer factors

Personal storytelling

Neurolinguistics Programming (NLP)

Coaching Techniques

Socialization dynamics

Synesthetic graphic

Individual interview

Trust Building

Team iceberg

Hopes & fears board (humour)

Individual team stories

Group success stories

Abstraction ladder

Context map

Group picture

Kinaesthetic modelling

Group tacit norms board

Clarifying Vision & Goals


Clarifying Vision & Goals


Project Model Canvas

Visual game plan

Resources identification

SMART goals & targets definition

Alignment with personal goals

Tasks identification

Challenges identification

Success factors definition

Mind map

System map

Gantt Chart

Organizing, Creating Commitment & Enabling


Organizing & Creating Commitment

Decision strategies board

Decision strategies matrix

Test to “yes”

Decision funnel

Investment portfolio (SCCA)

Functions decision (RASI)

Functions decision (Lanes)

Function decision (others)

Slow-fast approach

Roles test (Belbin)

Innovation roles test (Kelley)

Task model (Hersey & Blanchard)


Technical training

Behavioural training

Managerial training

Communicational training

Other training

Providing Resources, Structure & Communication


Resources & Structure

Financial resources

Physical & technological resources

Institutional structure

Communication structure

Work environment layout

Macroergonomic Analysis

Financial and non-financial incentives


Informal & formal

Analogic resources

Digital resources

Visual tools


Managing processes, Tasks & Emotions

Managing Processes & Tasks

R&D Process

Gantt Chart

Visual meeting

Cloud documentation

Kanban – visual control


MBWA leadership

Time x Place matrix (meetings)

Kanban meetings (feedback & improvement)

Success scenario

Managing Emotions

5 disfunctions model (Lencioni)

COG ladder

Flow Model (Mihaly)

5 forces power model (French & Raven)

Equity model (Adams)

NLP communication techniques

Conflict resolution (Thomas & Kilman)

Psychological states (Hackman & Oldham)

7 habits model (Covey)

Functions turnover

Leading by example

Assessing, Rewarding, Celebrating and Changing

Assessing, Rewarding, Celebrating & Changing

Assessing, Rewarding & Celebrating

360º assessment

Team graphic assessment (opportunities/forces)

Rite of passage

Visual feedback report

Performance indicator board

Learning fair

Learning video

Innovation fair

Financial reward

Non-financial reward

Celebration event

Managing Change

Judgement of strategic plan

Change charrette

Good news report


The toolboxes and tools are organized as showed in the Figure 6, using the Recruiting & Selecting toolbox as example. Each tool, in turn, is formatted as seen in the Figure 7.


Fig. 6 – The Recruiting & Selecting toolbox and its subgroups of tools.



Fig. 7 – The proposed one-page template to be used for each of the tools.


The information in the one-page template developed for formatting the tools include: a brief description and explanation about the function of the tool; the moment of the process in which the tool can be used; The way the tool should be used; the necessary inputs to feed the use the tool; the outputs delivered by the tool, and; some basic references that based the tool and can be consulted for further information.


6. Discussion and Preliminary Conclusions

The relevance of the problems caused by solid waste was explored in this study in an inductive way, using the problem of synthetic textile waste containing PA66 as starting point. This empirical approach was useful to understand how design can help to value innovation in a practical way, and also how are the most significant issues related to the team management in this R&D context. This approach, combined with a deeper investigation on additional theoretical foundation helped to build a strong conceptual and methodological basis that feed the development of the R&D model here proposed.
The most relevant finding since the first version of the R&D model (Sampaio et al, 2014) is the Team Performance Model (Sibbet, 2015), which represented a valorous contribution to the newest version of the R&D model here proposed, by the concept of visual teams. Both the steps and some methods and tools of the Sibbet´s model were integrated in the present R&D model, enriching their structure. As result, the present proposal seems to be a more complete structure for managing the team, both in this conceptual and methodological aspects.
The next steps of this study include the assessment of the proposed model, that will be done by adopting a focus group strategy with specialists in R&D team management, including R&D coordinators and leaders working in universities, research centres and companies that develop R&D projects focused on technological and value innovation.



Research project developed at the Design Department of State University of Londrina – UEL during the period of 2012-2015.



This paper was presented at Regional Helix 2016, and published exclusively at Convergences.


ABRAVEST, (2010). Dados Estatísticos do Setor Vestuário e Meias. Available at: [Accessed January 05, 2014].
Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Bastian, E.Y.O. (2009). Guia técnico ambiental da indústria têxtil / Elaboração Elza Y. Onishi Bastian, Jorge Luiz Silva Rocco; colaboração Eduardo San Martin [et al]. São Paulo: CETESB: SINDITÊXTIL. 978-85-61405-08-3. Accessed January 05, 2014.
Beckman, S.L., Barry M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, 50 (1) pp 25-56.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team Roles at Work. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth Heinemann.
Bennis, W.G., Slater, P.E. (1964). Democracy is inevitable. Harvard Bus. Rev. 42(2) 51–59.
Bodrero, S.C.E., Cansell, F. (1999). Chemical Recycling of Polyamide 6.6 and Polyamide 6 through a Two Step Ami-/Ammonolysis Process, 4th Annual Conference on Recycling of Fibrous Textile and Carpet Waste, Dalton, GA, May 17–18.
Booij, M., Hendrix, J.A.J., Frentzen, Y.H. (1997). Process for Recycling Polyamide-containing Carpet Waste, European Patent 759 456.
Brown, T. (2010). Design Thinking: Uma metodologia poderosa para decretar o fim das velhas ideias. São Paulo: Campus.
DeMasi, D. (2003). Criatividade e Grupos criativos (trad. Léa Manzi e Yadir Figueiredo). Rio de Janeiro Sextante.
Dolan, T.E. (2010). Revisiting Adhocracy: From Rhetorical Revisionism to Smart Mobs. Journal of Futures Studies, November 2010, 15(2): 33 – 50. Accessed April 14, 2014.
Drucker, P.F. (1987). Inovação e Espírito Empreendedor - Entrepreneuship. São Paulo: Editora Pioneira.
Drucker, P.F. (1999). Sociedade pós-capitalista. São Paulo: Pioneira; Publifolha.
Frentzen, Y.H., Thijert, M.P., Zwart, R.L. (1997). Process for the Recovery of Caprolactam from Waste Containing Nylon by Extraction with Alkyl Phenol, World Patent 97 03 04.
Kasserra, H.P. (1998). Recycling of Polyamide 66 and 6, Science and Technology of Polymers and Advanced Materials, edited by P. N. Prasad et al., Plenum Press, New York, p. 629–635.
Kelley, T. (2005). Ten Faces of Innovation: IDEO’s Strategies for Beating the Devil’s Advocate & Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. Doubleday.
Martins, S.B., Sampaio, C.P., Castilho, N.M. (2011). Moda e Sustentabilidade: proposta de sistema produto-serviço para Setor de Vestuário, Projética 2(2): 126-139.
Martins, S.B., Sampaio, C.P., Perez, I.U. (2013). Waste prevention and reuse of synthetic textiles: A case study in a Brazilian garment industry. In: 2nd International Conference On Sustainable Intelligent Manufacturing, 2013, Lisboa, Portugal. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Intelligent Manufacturing. London, UK: CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. v. 1. p. 453-457.
NIKE Considered Design, 2013. Accessed November 05, 2013.
Sampaio, C.P., Martins, S.B., Almendra, R.A., Silva, F.J.C.M. (2014). "New materials and products from synthetic textile waste: application of abductive reasoning in a design oriented process development", p. 511-517. In: Tradition, Transition, Trajectories: major or minor influences? ICDHS 2014 - 9th Conference of the International Committee for Design History and Design Studies. (São Paulo: Blucher, 2014) ISSN 2318-6968, DOI 10.5151/despro-icdhs2014-0073.
SEBRAE, (2004). Metodologia Sebrae 5 menos que são mais: redução do desperdício. Accessed January 05, 2014.
Senge, P.A. (1990). A Quinta Disciplina. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1990.
Sibbet, D. (2015). Equipes visuais: Ferramentas gráficas para comprometimento, inovação e alta performance, Alta Books.
Tofler, A. (1970). Future Shock, London: Pan Books.
Waterman, J.R. (1990). Adhocracy: The Power to Change. Knoxville, TN: Whittle Direct Books.
WRAP (2010). Final Report. Environmental benefits of recycling – 2010 update. March, 2010. Accessed January 05, 2014.
WRAP (2012). Valuing our clothes – The true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK. WRAP. Valuing our clothes: the evidence base’, WRAP, 2012, Accessed January 05, 2014.

Reference According to APA Style, 5th edition:
Sampaio, C. Martins, S. Silva, F. Almendra, R. ; (2017) From Solid Waste to Value Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Managing the team in an integrated R&D Management Model. Convergências - Revista de Investigação e Ensino das Artes , VOL X (19) Retrieved from journal URL: