Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Lillis
177 uses a basic structure. I put the reletive kids per group in parenthesis.
CADD (5)
Controls (3)
Mech (6)
Fundraising (6)
Media (4)
Total 24 kids, some filter in and out through the season, but this is the dedicated crew.
We have experimented with splitting media into two groups (Video and website), and that did not work very well. Pick what works best for your team's size.
|
From what I have gathered, OP wasn't necessarily asking on the size of the setup, but how one would arrange the structure such that it is not only strong, but adaptive to the changing interests of the students.
To throw my $.02 into this ring, my old team is (was) very similar to OPs team. We had a rigid set of teams, and for the most part, people did what their groups were assigned. However, we didn't discourage folks from taking a peek over the fence to the other groups. Business/Marketing folks would be asked to help with high level designs and provide feedback while Technical folks would be asked for feedback on presentations.
I will say that while the system didn't impose any inter-group restrictions; they naturally formed. As such, non-technical folks were not exposed to the technical aspects of the machine as the technical folks, and the same was true vice versa.
Just as a note, I think this topic/line of discussion is insanely interesting, and actually has had me thinking for the past few days.
- Sunny G.