# data[].attributes.body
The research process is evident throughout the entire article. Google and Julia Rozovsky were collectively stumped by the question, "Why do some teams stumble while others soar?" The process began with the observations that some teams, although inclusive of some of the best individuals were not being as successful as other groups. Qualitative data (observations) revealed this research question. Next, tradition and authority were consulted to identify known best practices for teams and groups. This revealed that group norms played a significant role in the success of the group. I saw multiple hypotheses developed and changed (plan-study-act) throughout the process. Initially, the hypothesis was in regards to the types of individuals that are in a group and the correlation between the individuals and the success of the group. After reviewing data and finding no significant trends, the hypothesis changed to revolve around norms.

At this point, the problem of practice was finally identified (although attempted and revised previously). Google's problem of practice was: What conditions or norms promote and create a psychologically safe environment? Project Aristotle "by adopting the data-driven approach of Silicon Valley [...] encouraged emotional conversations and discussions of norms among people who might otherwise be uncomfortable talking about how they feel." (Duhigg) I think initially Google thought their problem of practice was based on how to group individuals but ultimately they discovered that wasn't the case based on finding no correlations among that data analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process was evident throughout the entire article. The article started with the realization that schools are preparing students for the complex world, and have revised their curriculum to emphasize team-focused learning. Companies and corporations are moving towards 3/4 of their employees day is spent communicating with colleagues to promote cohesiveness. Google's problem of practice was finding what characteristics concerning employees were best suited to be grouped together. Were the best teams made up of people with similar interests, should motivated employees be grouped together, do people have the same hobbies in successful group, or should people with the same educational background be grouped together? The "who" part of the equation didn't matter.  In conclusion, Project Aristotle researchers concluded that understanding and influencing group norms were the keys to improving Googles' teams.

# data[].attributes.body
The problem of practice identified in the Google article is the effectiveness of collaborative groups. As outlined in the article, Rozovsky has had personal and work experiences with both effective and ineffective collaborative groups. The research method is integrated throughout the article. First and foremost, the prior knowledge and background gathered through research, data points, and other data collection tools were used to help decipher the problem of practice. Another key component in the research method is the experiment which was conducted by creating teams to complete a series of small assignments. These assignments allowed Google researches to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the individuals, as well as the results

# data[].attributes.body
I observed the research process throughout the entire article. Data was continuously collected, analyzed, and from that data questions were modified and the answer to their problem of practice became clear. It started with a personal connection with Julia Rozovsky’s experience and transitioned into Google’s workplace. Google’s problem of practice was defining collaborative group norms in order to have a productive and collaborative work environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Google's problem of practice was the question of why some teams were more productive than other teams within the company. The research process continued throughout the entire article but also began to cycle through again and again. First, Project Aristotle's researchers began studying "half -century" old data and studies to determine what research had already been completed on the topic. They then formulated research questions that they hoped to answer through their research. They studied different teams' productivity and dynamics and collected data by keeping diagrams and charts along the way. They looked for patterns over the 180 teams across the company but found none. They went back to study other components of the teams, specifically group norms. The posed new questions, studied the teams again, and drew some conclusions about psychological safety within teams. They determined that they had to act by establishing "communication and empathy" among teams, but then returned to the research cycle by planning how to actually execute that mission. Teams were given surveys and tried their own ways of creating a solid rapport within a group. In the end, the article discussed one specific group led by Matt Sakaguchi and his method of creating psychological safety for his team. From the data, we know that psychological safety is key to group success, but that there is no exact formula to follow in order to establish it.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process for Google, like all research, starts with the problem of practice.  In this case it seems that Google's proble of practice was that groups production was inconsistent.  Some groups' performance was more efficient than others, and Google was unsure why this was true, or how to increase group output.  With Google, it seems the research process is a constant cycle, so there is no clear beginning, however I see the review of psychological studies, productive group norms and the company's group personnel as a clear study of the problem.  Once it was established that psychological safety and group norms were a key to productive collaboration, Action was taken as additional data was collected measuring the perceived psychological safety of their employees.  With this new information, Google began to plan ways to establish open communication, "psych safety" and empathy as the desired group norms, and enact their plan by establishing a culture where emotional conversations are encouraged and discussion of norms that create psychological safety are the expectation of all groups.  Based on the experiences of Google employees Matt Sakaguchi and Julia Rozovsky, the newly established norms have created a psychologically safe environment and plenty of productivity.

# data[].attributes.body
We see the research process throughout this article. Google started not with a problem of practice, but more with a goal; to build the perfect team. In doing so, they begin by reviewing literature about effective teams. Then Project Aristotle begins collecting data on effective teams at Google. What they discovered in their research process was that their problem was not how to build the perfect team, but rather how to create an environment of psychological safety so that any team may succeed. Once this was identified as a problem of practice, finding strategies in which to do this became their topic of research.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process was evident multiple times throughout the reading. The composition and process of the various study groups and class competition teams at Yale were formed with the intention of promoting academic success. This is clear where it states that the latter were formed in order to propose "solutions to real-world business problems that were evaluated by judges." (Pg. 2) In addition Project Aristotle focused on studying why some groups did soared while others faltered when it came to accomplishing various business-related tasks.

Google's Problem of Practice involved examining hundreds of Google's teams and determining why "some stumbled while others soared."

# data[].attributes.body
Google's problem of practice was why are some teams and groups successful while other Google teams were not. The research process started with Google identifying their problem of practice, why are some groups successful while others are ineffective. The team behind Project Aristotle devised a plan to collect data through surveys from various teams. They analyzed the data and realized that they couldn't find any patterns. The cyclical nature of the research process came into play when they realized that they would need new data on the teams norms after consulting a different source. Project Aristotle came to the conclusion that groups must be psychologically safe to be effective a devised a way to share this information with the employees at Google, the act stage of the research process.

# data[].attributes.body
Google’s problem of practice falls within the failure to strategically group individuals into an effective team. The research then presented in Illustrations by James Graham is within the cycle of study, act, plan, and do. Graham states, “Project Aristotle’s researchers began by reviewing half –century of academic studies looking at how teams worked” (Graham 5).  In this process, Project Aristotle needed to see how grouping methodology affected progress and overall teamwork.  Through this research, though, they only found that, “Google’s research had identified dozens of behaviors that seemed important except that sometimes the norms of one effective team contrasted sharply with those of another equally successful group” (Graham, 6). To transition into the act portion of the cycle, team Aristotle determined that they needed to create teams who valued “psychological safety, more than anything else” in order for prime teamwork to take place. After continuing research for psychological safety, they took on the plan portion by deciding that “publicizing their research within Google would prompt employees to come up with some ideas of their own” (Graham, 11). Lastly, Google’s Matt Sakaguchi performs the do portion of this cycle when he interviews his teammates, finds their disconnect, and ultimately has himself and his teammates reveal personal information about themselves in order to create an atmosphere of psychological safety.

# data[].attributes.body
The problem of practice is that not all teams were able to collaborate effectively. The research process is seen throughout the article. As the researchers dug deeper, I felt like I was reading in a spiral formation. One answer led to a new finding which led to another question which brought them to something else. The process started with a personal experience of Rozovsky being a part of two teams and trying to understand why one team was so successful and the other was not.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process was embedded throughout the article. The problem of practice for Google was some groups of people work together to be more successfully than others. They were observing and researching to discover the reason behind this.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process was seen throughout the article in various forms.  The process began as a question. As time progressed, the question of "why" became reoccurring. Data was collected in order to gather information about the staff, their backgrounds, experience, feelings, attitudes and overall climate. The data was obtained through surveys and questionnaires. Once the data was sorted, organized and analyzed, it became clear that the problem of practice was that norms for meetings were not established resulting in both effective and non-effective teams.

# data[].attributes.body
Google's problem of practice was trying to determine what types of teams, if any, are the most efficient and successful at doing their job. They thought some teams were not as effective as others and wanted to find out why. Research is shown throughout this whole article.

One example of research in the project was when the researchers from Carnegie Melon, M.I.T., and Union got together and placed the 699 people into teams. Some teachers were about experts in a field (Team A) and others were mid-level managers (Team B) . They noticed that both teams could be successful, as long at the shared the amount of speaking time and shared their opinions/emotions rather than a few taking over. They took quantitative data, such as number of years and expertise, and made qualitative data about their effectiveness in regards to their sharing of emotions and sympathy. They noticed that the groups who were connected better socially, performed better.

# data[].attributes.body
The problem of practice is why do some professional learning communities succeed while others do not.  The research process was embedded throughout the entire article.  Data was collected and analyzed. One thing I found very interesting is how sharing about your personal life can help to build a strong team.

# data[].attributes.body
The research process is embedded throughout this entire article. It can be seen most clearly through Google's search to find out why some teams soar, while others stumble.  They discussed the academic studies they reviewed beforehand, the research they conducted in their own company, and the outcome of their research.  Overall, Google's problem of practice was why do some teams have success while others do not.?