A sweet new way to make some noise
Play it. Share it. Make a beat.
A pair of percussion sticks made entirely from marshmallows.
Meet the clapsticks ↘
our first sketch!01 / EXPLORE
Meet the clapsticks, explore the design and discover who they are for.
PRODUCT / OVERVIEW & FEATURES
Marshmallow Clapsticks turn a familiar rhythm activity into a playful rhythm experience. Tap the sticks, explore the sound and share the moment.
PRODUCT / HOW IT WORKS
The pink stick is compressed more tightly. The blue stick keeps more air inside. Different densities create different sounds.
STICK A · HIGH DENSITY
STICK B · MEDIUM DENSITY
Prepare the soft marshmallow texture.
Build even layers and roll a long cylinder.
Use different pressure for different densities.
Smooth, tap and compare the sound.
PRODUCT / THREE EXPERIENCES
Our product can create a short emotional response, support a positive mood and produce visible signs of enjoyment.
EMOTION · SHORT RESPONSE
Emotion is a feeling caused by a specific event.
The unusual idea of a marshmallow instrument makes people want to look closer, touch it and discover how it works.
MOOD · LASTING FEELING
Mood lasts longer and is less connected to one clear trigger.
Making rhythms together creates an energetic, playful and positive mood for the whole group.
AFFECT · VISIBLE EXPRESSION
Affect is how feelings are shown through the face, voice and body.
Bright eyes, smiles and trying different tapping movements show curiosity and enjoyment.
PRODUCT / WHO IT’S FOR
Creative music and learning activities.
A starting point for respectful discussion and creativity.
Friendly, hands-on group experiences.
Simple play to enjoy together.
02 / EXPLORE
The idea, the people and the motivation behind our project.
OUR STORY & TEAM / OUR IDEA
Our idea began with a simple question: what if we made a rhythm instrument entirely from marshmallows?
We combined a two-stick rhythm interaction with a completely different material—marshmallows—to create an experience that connects sound, creativity and an unexpected material.
Marshmallow Clapsticks is a student innovation concept. It does not copy or replace the cultural meaning of traditional clapsticks.
OUR STORY & TEAM / FOUR ROLES
Each role matches the way we can best support the project.
Team Coordinator
Keeps our ideas, tasks and discussions connected.
Presenter
Explains our product clearly and brings energy.
Research
Checks information and keeps our ideas practical.
Team Support
Listens, helps others and supports each task.
OUR STORY & TEAM / TEAM JOURNEY
Motivation is the force that starts, guides and keeps our behaviour going. Our project is shaped by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
FROM WITHIN
Our intrinsic motivation comes from the interest and satisfaction of the innovation process itself. We are curious about turning ordinary marshmallows into something that can be shaped, tapped and played.
FROM AROUND US
Our extrinsic motivation comes from results and recognition. We hope to receive useful feedback and show that our creativity and teamwork have practical value.
Curiosity made us want to try the idea. Designing and testing kept the work enjoyable. Feedback and recognition gave us another reason to improve it. Together, these internal and external factors moved our team from an unusual question to a product concept we could share.
03 / EXPLORE
Reflecting on our teamwork through organisational behaviour.
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 7
Learning to make room for different views.
During an early product design discussion, Haolin initially held back his concern about the amount of marshmallows needed for one set of Clapsticks. The specific issue was hesitation to question other members' judgment, which delayed the team's review of product information.
Psychological safety means feeling safe to ask questions, share different views and take interpersonal risks. Haolin’s hesitation illustrates how low psychological safety can limit open communication and knowledge sharing.
Social Facilitation Theory considers how the presence of others can influence individual performance. Week 7 presents social facilitation as a potential process gain. It offers a further lens for considering Haolin’s participation during group discussions. However, his greater willingness to speak after receiving encouragement mainly supports the psychological safety explanation; it does not, by itself, show that others’ presence improved his task performance.
The team had only recently started working together, and members were not yet familiar with one another. While the team was deciding the marshmallow quantity for each set, Haolin, in his research role, doubted the figure being used. He worried that directly questioning another member's judgment could cause embarrassment, so he did not immediately raise his concern.
This context helps explain the issue: assigning a research role did not automatically make it easy to challenge an idea. Haolin shared his concern after other members actively asked for his research opinion.
Haolin's initial hesitation meant that the team did not immediately recheck the amount of marshmallows required for each set of Clapsticks. This delayed the revision of product information, and also reflects how the limited Psychological Safety affects knowledge sharing and team decision-making.
Later, other members took the initiative to ask Haolin's opinion. He raised questions about the amount of marshmallows, and the team then rechecked and adjusted the relevant information together. This positive response made him realize that questioning an idea is not considered a criticism of the individual, so in subsequent discussions, he became more willing to share research results and different views.
This problem has improved so far, but maintaining Psychological Safety still requires the continuous efforts of the team. From this experience, the team realized that it is necessary to actively invite members to ask questions and respond in a constructive way so that potential issues can be raised earlier, while making full use of each member's expertise.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 7 — Psychological safety (slides 11–12); Social facilitation (slide 20).
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 9
Using feedback to rethink our message and make a better decision.
Our initial website presented “Edible” as a product feature. We focused on its possible social value without fully considering whether readers would mistake an existing property of marshmallows for our product's innovation. After Dr EY Song's email, we needed to decide whether to keep that message or revise it.
This incident reflects Framing Bias, that is, decision-makers pay excessive attention to specific aspects of a situation and ignore other relevant factors. At first, the team mainly focused on the positive effect of edible on social interaction, but did not fully consider that external evaluators might understand it as an innovative selling point of the product.
Bounded Rationality (Simon, 1972) further explains this phenomenon. Due to the limitations of time, information and cognitive ability, decision-makers often make judgments based on a few criteria. Our team mainly evaluates edible based on social values, without fully considering the audience's understanding and publicity effect.
Therefore, Framing Bias explains why the team focuses on the positive aspects of edible, while Bounded Rationality explains why the team relies on limited judgment criteria. Both of them limit the comprehensiveness of the initial decision-making.
At first, we wanted the website to communicate both a rhythm activity and a social experience. We thought sharing marshmallows could encourage interaction, so we included “Edible” in the first draft.
Our judgment focused on the intended social benefit. We did not fully consider how an external evaluator might interpret the claim. Dr EY Song later reminded us by email to focus on the innovation of the product itself, rather than the existing edible properties of marshmallows. This feedback exposed the gap between our design intention and the message readers might take away.
The original message risked blurring the product’s core innovation and created extra revision work. After receiving the email, we re-examined the promotional focus together. We recognised that our intention to encourage social interaction did not guarantee that an evaluator would understand the message in the same way.
We therefore changed the question guiding our decision. Instead of only asking how edibility could support interaction, we considered how the website could communicate the product’s innovative value more clearly. We decided to remove the promotional claims about edibility and focus on tapping together, creating rhythms and social interaction.
The change was more than a wording edit: external feedback helped us reconsider the frame behind our original judgment. We kept the goal of a shared social experience, but changed how we communicated it. This shows how feedback can improve a team decision when members use it to reassess their assumptions.
We learned that a reasonable design intention can still lead to a biased promotional decision. Before agreeing on future content, we will evaluate each claim from three perspectives: social value, innovation and audience understanding. Each member will consider both what we intend to communicate and how someone outside the team might interpret it. We will compare these views and check for possible misunderstandings before publishing.
When we receive external feedback, we will use these same perspectives to reconsider the reasoning behind a claim as well as its wording. Our response to the teacher’s email improved this decision, but it does not prove that the bias has disappeared. Keeping this review process will help us question our first impressions and make better decisions together.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 9 — Framing Bias and Bounded Rationality. Simon (1972) is cited in the team’s original Story 2 document.
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 10
How can leaders help members move from discussion to a decision when they have different ideas?
During our initial Marshmallow Clapsticks prototype discussion, we needed to agree on the product’s appearance and production method. We all wanted to encourage social interaction, but had different ideas about how to achieve this. Some members suggested adding colour and decoration to make the product more attractive. Others wanted a simpler design that would use fewer materials and take less time to make.
Participative leadership, a leadership behaviour within path-goal theory, involves seeking members’ views and including them in the decision process rather than relying entirely on the leader’s own judgment.
Instead of choosing a design himself, Boteng invited members to explain their proposals. This helped us consider both visual appeal and production feasibility, rather than deciding only on one person’s preferences. However, participation alone was not enough: without shared criteria, more discussion could delay the decision.
Path-goal theory explains how leaders help members reach their goals by clarifying requirements, providing support and removing obstacles. Our main obstacle was not a lack of creativity, but a lack of clear decision criteria. By helping the team establish these criteria, Boteng clarified the process and removed an obstacle to our progress.
At first, we encouraged creative ideas without agreeing on shared evaluation criteria. The discussion became repetitive because some members judged proposals mainly by appearance, while others focused on feasibility and time limits. As our formally designated team leader, Boteng needed to balance member participation with reaching a decision on time.
When the discussion struggled to reach a conclusion, Boteng suggested pausing new design proposals and first clarifying the basic requirements the product needed to meet.
We then compared the options using three criteria: production feasibility, presentation effectiveness and time limits. We considered whether we had enough materials, whether the audience could easily understand the product, and whether extra decoration would take time away from other tasks. This shifted the discussion from “Which design looks better?” to “Which design best fits our project goals?”
We decided to prioritise a simple, practical design and treat additional decoration as an optional improvement. Leadership in this episode meant helping members evaluate ideas and reach a decision, as well as encouraging them to contribute.
Boteng respected different opinions while reducing repetitive discussion through clearer decision criteria. For individuals, the opportunity to explain an idea meant that their views were considered even when their proposal was not selected. This supported a sense of participation. For the team, shared criteria helped us resolve design differences, identify a feasible solution and make a decision more efficiently.
The experience also showed us that participative discussion can delay decisions when it lacks direction. In future, we will agree on evaluation criteria in advance, separate creative discussion from the final decision stage, and identify who is responsible for the decision and when it must be made. This will help us keep members involved while moving the project forward.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 10 — Participative leadership and path-goal theory.
TEAM REFLECTION / WEEK 11
Finding a shared solution when product clarity and social value compete for space.
When preparing the Marshmallow Clapsticks proposal, we needed to explain both how the product works and why it is innovative within limited space. Our members disagreed about the focus of Part 2.
Zheran and Aizi prioritised product function. They wanted a detailed explanation of how tapping two marshmallow sticks creates rhythm, together with the product specifications. They worried that a brief description would leave readers unsure how to use the product.
Boteng and Haolin prioritised social value. They wanted more space to explain how rhythm interaction encourages socialisation and how the product differs from ordinary snacks. The disagreement was about which content needed detail and which could be simplified.
This was task conflict: disagreement about work content, goals or direction. Members differed over what the proposal should highlight, rather than personal character or private relationships, so the incident was not relationship conflict.
Managed constructively, the disagreement could become functional conflict. Both views identified a possible weakness: too little functional description could reduce clarity, while too little analysis of innovative value could weaken persuasion. The aim was to use different opinions to improve the proposal.
We used integrative bargaining by identifying the core needs behind each position and seeking a win-win solution. Both sides needed the proposal to succeed, and product clarity and social value could be supported together through a better structure.
The proposal needed to meet two writing goals: show that the product concept was clear and feasible, and explain its innovation and unique value. Before writing, we had not clarified the different purposes of the product description and value proposition or agreed on content priorities.
As a result, members used different criteria to judge a paragraph's importance. Some focused on whether readers had enough information to understand the product; others focused on whether the content demonstrated innovation. With limited space, these complementary goals began to compete and delayed the finalisation of Part 2.
We discussed each side's main concerns and compared the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches. We then organised the content so each aim had a clear place:
2.1 Product Concept: explain the basic use of the product.
2.2 Product Specifications: bring together details such as length, quantity and materials.
2.3 Product Innovation & Features: focus on the product's innovative value.
This solution met both needs by adjusting the structure, rather than requiring one side to abandon its goal.
For individuals, negotiation helped members understand one another's concerns and recognise the value of different views. This supported mutual respect and helped maintain trust.
For the team, the revised structure made the proposal clearer and more convincing: it explained both how the product works and why it is innovative. The experience showed how constructively managed task conflict can lead to positive results.
For future work, we will agree on the purpose and evaluation criteria of each section before writing. The disagreement exposed a gap in our early planning; clearer priorities should reduce unnecessary conflict and improve efficiency.
Course concepts: MGMT2007, Week 11 — Task conflict, functional conflict and integrative bargaining. Based on the team's Week 11 reflection.
TEAM REFLECTION / OVERALL REFLECTION
Our Week 7 experience showed us that assigning roles is only part of effective teamwork. Members also need to feel able to use their expertise and question ideas. We want to keep inviting different views, discussing concerns respectfully and checking whether our discussions lead to better decisions.