It has been proved that the best way to achieve good results is by mixing

different ideas together, as differentiation leads to analysing the ideas from more
points view, leading to a better perspective. VIEW diagnostic test can be used for
analysing the differences appearing in a group, due to members different
perspectives. Following the perception of VIEW, our group has spread the ideas
into three dimensions in order to compare the entire module.

The first dimension is represented by the orientation to change and innovation

results. The results of the group have showed a more shift towards the side of
developers, reaching scores close to a range of 80, which only one member was
closer to explorer, with a range of 60. (Appendix 1). The differences into answers
are a result of personal opinions over the model concept. These opinions can be
divided into two main categories: approach of idea seeking and results. This is a
result of the group work approach, firstly we have analysed the environmental
factors influencing the transportation industry, further our group has set up a
couple of rules, this was leading to the group choosing an approach in designing
the model, which lead to the project scenarios and report produced for
Assignment 1, present in appendix 3. The results of the group work more radical,
rather than incremental, which is not partially true to the VIEW test.

The second dimension is manner of processing and describes peoples

preferences to work

internally (working alone) or externally (working with a group). The group results
showed a more shift of dimensions to internal dimension, compare to the whole
module group, which only one result was closer to external dimension with 28,
the value of the range. This proves why the work submitted by the group has be
mostly done individually, rather than together, as a group.

The third dimension was the manner of deciding: the major significance which
was given by each member to the other people in the group or to the task or
business model building. The report proves that more members had a shift to the
person-focused personalities, reaching ranges under 35, while one person had a
range of 40, being shift to the task-focused personality. Due to this personality
factor, the group working process had two points of view, but it all worked calm,
in complete understanding. Every member of the group was able to express its
own point of view and opinions, discussing them and coming up with the best
strategy. Also, the task- oriented people of the group used to be able to pull the
other members to reach their team goal, be more realistic and objective in
coming up with solutions.