Denise Brooks led the Tinker Toy Exercise this past week. The class was given two cans of tinker toys and told to build the tallest structure possible (this exercise comes from the Deming Electronic Network).

How did it go? Was the task accomplished? Comments from last year's students are available below.

What are the implications of our tendency to compete versus cooperate? This is certainly fodder for a final exam essay . . .

Upon reflection of the exercise after the fact, the actions of the groups under the stress of the time constraints, amid the whirl of multiple ideas, comments, and plans and the unfamiliarity of the team members with each other, I believe that each of the team members fell back to their first learned behaviors. Usually in time of stress, people revert to their first learned behaviors. The first learned behaviors for most of us, considering who we are and the fact that we are MBA students, is to plunge forth take a position or a group and protect that position. I think that is what we experienced as team members and many times what we have experienced in our work histories. Over time, as the positions are solidified, more discernment reveals other possibilities. Through learning processes and life experiences will first learned experiences be forged into deliberate behaviors.

Good thoughts and a good theory. Thank you for posting this. Hopefully it will lead to some discussion.

Steve,
I was talking about this with a work associate here and was wondering if this were a western by-product or if the same thing would happen in other cultures. For example would people trained in an asian culture function as a team more readily or would they also drift toward compitition? Just currious if there are any studies or what your thoughts are on this.

Mark

Steve,
I was talking about this with a work associate here and was wondering if this were a western by-product or if the same thing would happen in other cultures. For example would people trained in an asian culture function as a team more readily or would they also drift toward compitition? Just currious if there are any studies or what your thoughts are on this.

Mark

Actually, a good website to go to for furthering understanding is http://www.alfiekohn.com

During the discussion after the Tinker Toy task, I was surprised by some of the feedback given. Apparently some individuals did not take an active role and failed to assert themselves and provide their input. The group, not intentially, under utilized their resources by not taking into account everyone's knowledge and abilities. So how can a group, whether presumed in competition or not, come up with the best solution when they fail to communicate even within their sub-group? This may stem from our early childhood learned behaviors, however competition is re-enforced throughout our adult lives as well. Trying to get ahead in careers, social status and so on. It appears then, that even from our earliest teachings we are setup to sub-optomize our decisions and actions. Given this information, how do we change it? As managers, how do we influence others to think outside of this norm and strive to maximize all options for the desired goal(s)?

During the discussion after the Tinker Toy task, I was surprised by some of the feedback given. Apparently some individuals did not take an active role and failed to assert themselves and provide their input. The group, not intentially, under utilized their resources by not taking into account everyone's knowledge and abilities. So how can a group, whether presumed in competition or not, come up with the best solution when they fail to communicate even within their sub-group? This may stem from our early childhood learned behaviors, however competition is re-enforced throughout our adult lives as well. Trying to get ahead in careers, social status and so on. It appears then, that even from our earliest teachings we are setup to sub-optomize our decisions and actions. Given this information, how do we change it? As managers, how do we influence others to think outside of this norm and strive to maximize all options for the desired goal(s)?
Yes, each group had at least one withdrawn person not contributing. This does happen in the "real world" often. As managers (and especially team leaders) one should be on the look out for those that are always chiming in and those that never chime in. You may have to as a team leader take a more active role and actually seek out the quiet ones, and make sure to ask "What do you think about this question, Tom"? Then at least you stand a chance of surfacing all of the ideas available. It may also be an outfall of the competitive environment that the quiet people are unsure of themselves and thus be quiet unless specifically brought out. There are also differences in human personalities.

Yes, each group had at least one withdrawn person not contributing. This does happen in the "real world" often. As managers (and especially team leaders) one should be on the look out for those that are always chiming in and those that never chime in. You may have to as a team leader take a more active role and actually seek out the quiet ones, and make sure to ask "What do you think about this question, Tom"? Then at least you stand a chance of surfacing all of the ideas available. It may also be an outfall of the competitive environment that the quiet people are unsure of themselves and thus be quiet unless specifically brought out. There are also differences in human personalities.Paramount in any discussion about "group dynamics" is the issue of who the group leader is (skills, education, aptitude, political alliances) and how the leader becomes the leader (elected by group or selected by outside authority.)

The ideal leader gets the "biggest bang" from the group resources. Most leaders, however, squander their human capital. For proof, just look at the average business corporation and how its leaders misuse, abuse, and otherwise squander their human capital, despite all sorts of lip service to the contrary "our most valuable asset"[/b] here.]

A good leader will draw out and fairly evaluate opinions from shy members of the group.

Summary:
It is important to understand the "not-so-subtle" cues set forth by the authority figure (teacher or corporate executive) when setting tasks for the group or groups - ranging from "do or die" (the group that succeeds keeps its job, the other group is fired [ala "Apprentice"]) to "fat bonus," cues which say COMPETE, not COOPERATE.

In Quality, we continually talk about "root cause." What is the true root cause [of noncooperation] in a classroom situation when the instructor creates two or more groups as part of setting the assignment? In my opinion, it is definitely NOT cultural or social bias on the part of the students except to the extent students take their cue from the [i][supposedly] wiser and more experienced instructor.

(Talk about being set up to fail!)

In Quality, we continually talk about "root cause." What is the true root cause [of noncooperation] in a classroom situation when the instructor creates two or more groups as part of setting the assignment? In my opinion, it is definitely NOT cultural or social bias on the part of the students except to the extent students take their cue from the [supposedly] wiser and more experienced instructor.

(Talk about being set up to fail!)

Since Deming knew the normal outcome of the bead box experiment, does that mean he was a poor instructor? If we learn from mistakes, I could argue the case that having the teams fail is probably more effective and memorable than having them succeed.

Of course, I participated in one of those company team building camps where you do various team activities where I learned a lesson by succeeding. We managed to complete almost all the activities as designed because we were already working well as a team. The one activity that we completed irritated the camp facilitator since she had her prepared failure speech already but not a success speech. Her first comment was that we screwed up the entire excercise by succeeding.

Bill Pflanz

Since Deming knew the normal outcome of the bead box experiment, does that mean he was a poor instructor?

. . .
The one activity that we completed irritated the camp facilitator since she had her prepared failure speech already but not a success speech. Her first comment was that we screwed up the entire excercise by succeeding.

Bill PflanzDeming made it clear after the red beads that the process was at fault, not the workers. Tinker toys puts the burden on the students because they didn't cooperate - the instructor doesn't say the result is: "Always question the motive of the authority figure setting the task." (I don't think that kind of message would work in the US Marines, would it?) It sure wouldn't work with a goofy CEO like "the Donald."

Your camp experience really brings home the point you were set up to fail and got no reward for success. What does an instructor do if the class cooperates in Tinker toys? Usually, he suspects someone of knowing the "trick" and thus invalidating the "test."

Deming made it clear after the red beads that the process was at fault, not the workers. Tinker toys puts the burden on the students because they didn't cooperate - the instructor doesn't say the result is: "Always question the motive of the authority figure setting the task." (I don't think that kind of message would work in the US Marines, would it?) It sure wouldn't work with a goofy CEO like "the Donald."

Your camp experience really brings home the point you were set up to fail and got no reward for success. What does an instructor do if the class cooperates in Tinker toys? Usually, he suspects someone of knowing the "trick" and thus invalidating the "test."

Robert Crow of the DEN is the originator of the exercise. Actually, there are other aspects to the exercise other than just the cooperation/competition part. If two groups did decide to cooperate (which neither Robert nor I have seen yet), they would still be faced with other problems, and the exercise would still be "worthwhile". Purposely, as with many exercises, the students are provided minimal information, and are supposed to develop their own answers. In this case, no one on record has yet gone "outside the box" and chosen to cooperate.

I did "win all you can win" the week after this. One student did belatedly figure out what was happening, but still could not convince the other three groups to cooperate on the final round.

Since Deming knew the normal outcome of the bead box experiment, does that mean he was a poor instructor? If we learn from mistakes, I could argue the case that having the teams fail is probably more effective and memorable than having them succeed.

Of course, I participated in one of those company team building camps where you do various team activities where I learned a lesson by succeeding. We managed to complete almost all the activities as designed because we were already working well as a team. The one activity that we completed irritated the camp facilitator since she had her prepared failure speech already but not a success speech. Her first comment was that we screwed up the entire excercise by succeeding.

Bill Pflanz

I must tell the story that a Human Resources instructor embarked to give a group of 30 new hires (mostly all ex-Navy nuclear people) an exercise. The directions were very nebulous. Much consternation was starting amongst the group. I (one of those new hires) then asked out loud "Is this one of those exercises where you give a new group a nebulously worded exercise to see how they interact to determine what to do?"

The instructor stormed out of the room and we ended up with the afternoon off.

Actually I would love to see a group "beat" the Tinker Toy exercise, the Beer Game, or the Win all you can Win. In all cases, even if a single person "knew" "the answer", they would still have a tough time convincing the rest of the groups.

But if they succeeded, this would be a great opporunity to debrief - what did you know before you came in, and how did you convince others to follow you?

I have also openly stated the names of the exercises we are going to do, and I have yet to have a student research the exercise and "cheat". I am reminded of Capt Kirk's methods to win exercises in Star Trek 2.

By the way, I will need to have this board hidden prior to running this class again!!!!

Actually I would love to see a group "beat" the Tinker Toy exercise, the Beer Game, or the Win all you can Win. In all cases, even if a single person "knew" "the answer", they would still have a tough time convincing the rest of the groups.

But if they succeeded, this would be a great opporunity to debrief - what did you know before you came in, and how did you convince others to follow you?

I have also openly stated the names of the exercises we are going to do, and I have yet to have a student research the exercise and "cheat". I am reminded of Capt Kirk's methods to win exercises in Star Trek 2.

By the way, I will need to have this board hidden prior to running this class again!!!!

I was wondering why no one cheated since the websites that you provided for the games gave the solution. Is it possible that they did try to cheat but because of the way the game is structured, that you cannot taint the results even if you tried? Or maybe they did know the right way to do the exercise but were afraid that they would be accused of cheating?

I removed myself from some of the various quality and team building exercises in the past since I "knew the answer". The instructor agreed to let me sit out of them so I never tested your theory about whether I could have convinced them that I knew the correct answer.

This forum thread is providing some interesting views on how people learn.

Bill Pflanz

Actually I would love to see a group "beat" the Tinker Toy exercise, the Beer Game, or the Win all you can Win. In all cases, even if a single person "knew" "the answer", they would still have a tough time convincing the rest of the groups.

But if they succeeded, this would be a great opporunity to debrief - what did you know before you came in, and how did you convince others to follow you?

I have also openly stated the names of the exercises we are going to do, and I have yet to have a student research the exercise and "cheat". I am reminded of Capt Kirk's methods to win exercises in Star Trek 2.

By the way, I will need to have this board hidden prior to running this class again!!!!

Then is appears, that if we researched or worked together to learn all we can to do the best we can. . ."cheat" as Capt Kirk did, we are really just maximizing our resources to get to the optimal "true or best" solution. Then why does our society (education & work environments) set us up to sub-optimize our actions and results? Wouldn't it be better to "cheat" - work together, even on school exams to get the best results - ultimately learn the correct answers and solutions!!!? Cooperation should become the desired norm. . .for us to maximize our learning and acheive the best results! Even on the Final Exam. . .

Then is appears, that if we researched or worked together to learn all we can to do the best we can. . ."cheat" as Capt Kirk did, we are really just maximizing our resources to get to the optimal "true or best" solution. Then why does our society (education & work environments) set us up to sub-optimize our actions and results? Wouldn't it be better to "cheat" - work together, even on school exams to get the best results - ultimately learn the correct answers and solutions!!!? Cooperation should become the desired norm. . .for us to maximize our learning and acheive the best results! Even on the Final Exam. . .You have done some good analysis. Add this to your data list:

the point of Capt. Kirk's "exercise" from Star Fleet's point of view was to present a candidate with the reality he might have some situations in the future where he would have to make a choice between "bad" outcomes. Kirk's cheating only emphasized that saving life was more important than following "rules." Kirk didn't so much "cheat" as add another "bad" choice to the mix - cheating on the rules. This is certainly similar to governments condoning assassinations during wartime, as well as "weapons of mass destruction" and "collateral damage" of killing innocent noncombatants. Star Fleet never told Kirk he could NOT "cheat" merely because none of the Star Fleet hierarchy had the initiative to cheat themselves.
the lie in Tinker Toys is that the object is to build the tallest tower, when the real object is to see whether participants will ignore the implied rules and work in concert to achieve a shared goal. The instructor deliberately drags a red herring across the trail by creating two teams and giving each a box of tinker toys.
Deming had a multitude of "points" to make in Red beads. Among them:
a) He wanted participants to feel the frustration regular workers feel in a bad system.
b) He wanted participants to understand how unfair the punishment and reward system was.
c) He wanted to make a lasting impression. (few who have been Willing Workers EVER forget the experience.)
The real question should be: what does the participant in Tinker Toys come away with as his lasting impression?
a) that he was easily duped into competing instead of cooperating?
b) that he plunged into work without clarifying the rules and the real goals?
c) that as a manager he should foster cooperation versus competition among his employees? (this last one is tough in light of "Survivor" and "Apprentice" reality shows which glorify competition over cooperation.)
I'll bet a dozen Dunkin Donuts more people talk about Apprentice than about Red Beads and Tinker Toys combined, despite the fact either Quality game is more beneficial to the average organization than Apprentice .
Woefully, the situations we face in real life are hardly ever clear cut choices between right and wrong, because there are always extenuating or mitigating circumstances which affect our approach to solving problems. The amount of input we get into problem solving is greatly affected by how high we rank on the food chain of the organization. In addition to being able to "recognize" the correct course of action, we have to be able to "sell" it to peers and superiors. It takes a VERY enlightened business leader to accept input about business strategy from production or maintenance workers, no matter how many suggestion boxes are out on the plant floor.

Even more woefully, no matter how right or how persuasive the champion, sometimes the organization still chooses the wrong strategy. I remember back in the early 70's, despite the strenuous objections by me and my strongest ally in the company, our organization plunged $10 million into a construction loan for a weird hybrid shopping mall/indoor amusement park. We ended up losing $7.5 million of our initial investment when the project failed. Our partner in the deal was Ford Motor Credit who also lost $7.5 million on that transaction plus at least that much more on a disasterous hotel deal we did NOT join only because we didn't have enough liquid cash. Our organization went into the first deal despite insider objections because the majority of the Board wanted the "prestige" of doing a deal with Ford Motor Credit. At my bonus level, that was $325,000 I did NOT earn that year.

[/list]Woefully, the situations we face in real life are hardly ever clear cut choices between right and wrong, because there are always extenuating or mitigating circumstances which affect our approach to solving problems. The amount of input we get into problem solving is greatly affected by how high we rank on the food chain of the organization. In addition to being able to "recognize" the correct course of action, we have to be able to "sell" it to peers and superiors. It takes a VERY enlightened business leader to accept input about business strategy from production or maintenance workers, no matter how many suggestion boxes are out on the plant floor.



Wes, I think you have gone to the core of what is going on in the experiment, as well as in working environments in general.

Too often we draw lines without even knowing it. Usually our "programming", the result of past experience, does well for us - it lets us make assumptions that lay the groundwork for solving a particular problem. As has been mentioned in this thread, competition is very much a part of this, and why not? We are constantly competing, and watching others compete (anyone watch Monday Night Football last night?).

Even though a given organization is supposed to be pulling in the same direction, there are often sub-competitions, for lack of a better word, that lead to inefficiencies. The budgeting process is but one example. The various departments compete for a limited amount of funding.

Also, as you said so well, we tend to be cognizent of our place within our social hierarchy. Those below us are, after all, inferior to us, right?
:rolleyes:

Our environment and past experiences can be a bit of an impediment, at times.

Then is appears, that if we researched or worked together to learn all we can to do the best we can. . ."cheat" as Capt Kirk did, we are really just maximizing our resources to get to the optimal "true or best" solution. Then why does our society (education & work environments) set us up to sub-optimize our actions and results? Wouldn't it be better to "cheat" - work together, even on school exams to get the best results - ultimately learn the correct answers and solutions!!!? Cooperation should become the desired norm. . .for us to maximize our learning and acheive the best results! Even on the Final Exam. . .

Please do note that for those that did not do so well on the Midterm I offered an extra opportunity for those folks to relook at what they missed and demonstrate they met the learning objectives. The final exam does not have the time availability to do a similar thing, but I have provided plenty of opportunity for folks to know what will be on the final, and this board is a place for the students to kick around ideas for the essay. Certainly some of the ideas from outside the class may provide interesting things to add to your essay about this exercise.

Actually I would love to see a group "beat" the Tinker Toy exercise, the Beer Game, or the Win all you can Win. In all cases, even if a single person "knew" "the answer", they would still have a tough time convincing the rest of the groups.
It's amazing how self-centered we all are.

It would be difficult to convince others that giving up one's self-interests can be beneficial to one's self and all others involved.

People, by nature, are self-centered and not readily willing to give up one's own gain.

Jaime

I will admit I am a bit of a game freak. I loved the old Avalon Hill wargames during college. In those games, you did need to know "the rules", and what loopholes there were in the rules to take advantage of situations. Monopoly players have also analyzed the "system" that is Monopoly, and know all of the ideosyncracies and interations in the system.

I think this is true in the "real world", there are the "rules" and the common ways that we perceive things to be, then there are those "breaking of the rules" actions that can gain huge benefits. Or fail miserably.

I am told by a former Polaroid employee that a Polaroid engineer came up with an idea for "digital photography" in 1982 and proposed it to their management chain. Management completely shot down the idea. Now, you may ask, what has become of Polaroid today? Versus what if they developed digital photography in the early 80's?

I do not advocating "cheating" in terms of "I don't care by what method you do it". But there is a fine line between "cheating" and "thinking outside the box".

I also hate game and simulation developers who don't do their homework and don't develop a complete system. During Total Quality Facilitator training in the Navy I labored with a group to do the final project. Much information was withheld and we struggled mightily. At the end, the instructor stated "well, why didn't you ask for the information?" To me that seemed cheesy. But I did learn the lesson to question assumptions.

Then why does our society (education & work environments) set us up to sub-optimize our actions and results? Wouldn't it be better to "cheat" - work together, even on school exams to get the best results - ultimately learn the correct answers and solutions!!!? Cooperation should become the desired norm. . .for us to maximize our learning and acheive the best results! Even on the Final Exam. . .
Interesting. Way back when I was in Grade 6 math (and dinosaurs walked the Earth), I was a called "fast learner". The teacher assigned each fast learner responsibility for a "slow learner". Our task was to ensure they passed the exam. Also kept us out of trouble and socialized us. I'm pretty sure such an execellent teacher would be fired now a days.

When I took my MBA, I was hooted down and criticised for saying "that's a good idea, let's see if we can build on it" during a case study. A good old MBA knows it's gotta be your way or no way! I was already ruined by my Quality ways of thinking.

Hey, didn't the Donald just announce bankruptcy yet again? Let's fire him!

This message serves as the divider between the 2004 and the 2005 discussion.

Cooperation is on a higher-functioning plane than competition; is it not?
Is our competitive nature a byproduct of our fright,flight, fight inbred (adrenal glandular response) nature? That physiological response may have evolved in nature in order for the species to be adequate hunters and gatherers. I believe that cooperation requires more discipline and internal resource (like good communication skills and the like) than a purely competitive nature. Also, personality traits come into play. Some folks are just "born leaders" and take-charge, while others sit back, listen, contemplate, and may or may not come through with a great idea and cooperative skills in the end.
Read about Shackleton's expedition to the Antarctic for demonstrated leadership and the value of good teamwork - which, I believe is inspired not only through verbiage, but through modeling of the behavior desired, by our leaders. Too many managers (including one to whom I currently report) play the us-versus-them game. How destructive to morale and self (as well as team) growth, that type of modeling can be! The Tinker Toy exercise showed us a subtle kind of teamwork that could have been achieved by reading outside the box, so to speak :) Anita Alston

So how did it go? I have not yet checked in with Denise.

Let's see - from past experience and theory:

1. At least one structure collapsed.

2. The two groups competed making two separate structures rather than cooperated to build one large structure.

3. Pandemonium ensued when you were told you could not talk to each other during construction.

4. Much interesting discussion ensued.

Denise Brooks led the Tinker Toy Exercise this past week. The class was given two cans of tinker toys and told to build the tallest structure possible (this exercise comes from the Deming Electronic Network).

How did it go? Was the task accomplished? Comments from last year's students are available below.

What are the implications of our tendency to compete versus cooperate? This is certainly fodder for a final exam essay . . .

The tinker toy exercise is another good demonstration of team diagnostic skills and team dynamics when there are time demands, competitive demands, and cooperation demands. In our group, I saw the participants change roles from passive to active more than once during the exercise. But as the planning phase of the exercise wound down, the increased pressure to develop a workable plan led to a couple of participants assuming a more active role (leader role). As we moved to the second phase of the exercise, which required construction of the tallest structure possible, the time limit of one minute, the change in location, and the change in directions made us realize that our planning had not adequately addressed these issues. Additionally, both groups fell for "the trap" in the exercise and assumed that since we had been divided into groups, we had to compete. We overlooked the fact that there was no stated rule about working together as one large group and pooling our resources to meet the objective of "building the tallest structure" - DUH. Therefore, we went on our "merry" competitive way trying to better the other team. I would equate this lesson to "stove piping" in organizations and companies. Groups focus on their own goals and objectives and lose sight of the overall objective of the organization. The competition that results in the organization diminishes the capability of that organization. The result can be a stark realization that if we had worked together to meet the company objective instead of competing with each other for visibility and self-satisfaction, the company would still be in business - OUCH.

Hi Everyone,
Denise is a wonderful speaker and I enjoyed the game. Our group managed to build the tallest structure unfortunately the base was not compelete within the one minute time frame so it would not free stand, darn. We did plan and discuss and work well together, with one individual acting as the "manager". We had a great plan, just not enough time.

One thing I noticed after our tower would not stand alone was one member had the basic plan to start with, after only a few minutes and had we stuck with that one instead of throwing out more ideas I believe our structure would have stood.

What made our group continue to bat around more ideas when that one was adequate? Then overlook it in the end? We appeared to get so wrapped up in builing the best mouse trap we did not recognize we already had a workable solution.

Interesting.
Lori Beeler
MBA Student

I did play with Tinker Toys a lot as a child, and my undergraduate is in Structural Engineering. The optimal solution with a single can of toys appears to be to make a square base with red sticks around the outside. Then put 4 yellows as diagonals to a center spool. This makes a very flat and rigid base. I have found you can then built a spire that is just one stick plugged into another using the cylinders and the remaining spools as connectors. The spire is plugged into the center spool of the base. It will stand about 8 feet high on its own. To meet the time limit, one person builds the base, and two or three people build sections of the spire, then plug them all together.

Usually I find the failures are due to a lack of foundation. An interesting parable, eh?

Wow, I hope the rest of my team reads the cove ... that was almost our plan except we had a double base and that is what took so long to get together. The other half of the team did a great job on building the spire...it was about 8' tall with a nice "flower" on the top, we on the base missed out. Next time!!
Lori Beeler

Denise had some great stories! This was my first experience with Tinker Toys, I was deprived as a child. Needless to say, it was hard for me to visualize how the structure would look without being able to 'test fit' the parts. We did manage to rough out a plan of action, so when the time came for the actual exercise, we were able to get a good start on it. I wanted to use the can for the exercise but got voted down; in hindsight, it would have been incorrect since we were to make the tallest 'freestanding' structure. How many times has that happened though where a manager may have wanted to do something that may be incorrect, and since they are the manager, don't listen to the rest of the group?

Usually I find the failures are due to a lack of foundation. An interesting parable, eh?


You could just about sum up the whole ISO, Baldridge, Six Sigma, etc. program with just that sentence.

the tinker toy experiment showed that when a time constraint is placed upon a group of workers-how quickly the tasks can be divided up to get the end product. There is no doubt in my mind that our team wanted to complete this task and have the tallest structure. From the beginning, I feel that we all contributed to coming up with the best idea for this structure:applause: . Each of us had our role when the designing aspect was occuring. But, when that final time constraint of actually putting it together was placed upon us-we were all forced to be a builder of this structure. We each dropped our role from the beginning and pitched in to get this accomplished.

What I found really interesting is that I don't think of myself as competitive at all. So, why didn't I think of working with the other group? It seemed like I was playing by the rules, which we had decided meant we couldn't put the tinker toys together. In retrospect, I certainly don't know why. I think we do this in the world of work all the time. We just don't seem to think outside the box very often. Again, this seems like another great exercise to do with our management team.

I thought our team did a great job of working together and contributing toward the end goal. We didn't build the tallest structure, but we were on the right track, but just fell a few seconds short of success. I honestly felt a little mislead on the rules when we were asked why we didn't combine the groups, but I guess I never thought to ask if we could. I wanted to stay within the rules that were given and not question them...I was focused on the task at hand with my team.
At work that is called stove piping. This exercise really gave me an example in short order of what stove piping can do on a simple task and how it can make the desired outcome less than what a company would want.

Good discussion. Yes, I hope we all put a little thought into the costs that result from stove-piping, from lack of cooperation across business units.

Competitiveness is the word that first comes to my mind as a result of the Tinker Toy experiment. The teams were so busy competing that they didn't hear (or in this case not hear) the instructions. At no time during the experiment were the teams told or lead to believe they could not work together. Working together is the key to success in any venture, whether work related or not. The methods we have learned this quarter need to be implemented through teamwork not only by an individual. When everyone is on the same page and "hears" what is really being said then something good will be acheived.