There has been some discussion in the literature concerning whether homogeneous or heterogeneous design teams produce the better results. This study compares the performances of three aspects of the design process as produced by 81 student teams. The teams are categorized by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators of their members. The more personality homogeneous teams produced the better quality work. Hence, the study has added some support to the argument that homogeneous teams may be preferable, at least for relatively short projects. However, there are many factors besides similar of personalities, such as past academic performance, age, gender mix, ethnic mix, and work experience, that may affect team performance. Therefore it would be a mistake to assume that forming teams based on personality type alone will significantly and uniformly affect their performances.

Volume Subject Area:
Mechanical Engineering Education
Keywords:
Design, Education, Teams, Temperament
Topics:
Design, Teams
1.
Sylvie Dore, “Use of Personality Type as a Means of Team Building,” Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal, Canada, June 16–19, 2002. Search for session 2525 at http://www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/search.cfm.
2.
Dan Jensen, John Feland, Martin Bowe, and Brian Self, “A 6-Hats Based Team Formation Strategy: Development and Comparison with an MBTI Based Approach,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, St. Louis, MO. Search at http://www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/search.cfm.
3.
http://www.foundationcoalition.org/teams, accessed January 12, 2006.
4.
Isabel B. Myers and Mary H. McCaulley, Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1993.
5.
D. Kiersey and M. Bates, Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types, Prometheus Nemesis Book Co. Del mar, CA, 1978.
6.
McCaulley
M. H.
, “
Psychological Types in Engineering: Implications for Teaching
”,
Journal of Engineering Education
,
66
,
729
–
736
,
1976
.
7.
McCaulley
M. H.
, “
Applications of Psychological Types in Engineering Education
”,
Journal of Engineering Education
,
73
,
394
–
400
,
1983
.
8.
McCaulley
M. H.
, “
The MBTI and Individual Pathways in Engineering Design
”,
Journal of Engineering Education
,
80
,
537
–
542
,
1990
.
9.
R. W. Brown, “Autorating: Getting Individual Marks from Team Marks and Enhancing Teamwork,” 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, November 2–4, 1995, available at http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie95/3c2/3c24/3c24.htm
10.
Richard Bannerot, “Experiences in Teaching Sophomore Design in Mechanical Engineering,” presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education 2004: Global Excellence in Engineering Education, Gainesville, FL, October 16–21, 2004. Available on Conference CD and posted at conference website: http://www.ineer.org/Welcome.htm
11.
Richard Bannerot, “How the Presence of Women Affects the Performance of Design Teams in a Predominately Male Environment”, paper presented at the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 17–20, 2006, Chicago, IL. Paper 2006–833.
12.
Richard Bannerot, “Characteristics of Good Team Players”, Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition of the ASEE, June 20–23, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT. Available on Conference CD and posted at http://www.aswee.org/acPapers/2004-1105_Final.pdf. Search at http://www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/search.cfm.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 2006
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.