I think the process of this performance has been very different from how I usually work. A lot of this stems from our original ideas of what we wanted the piece to be- rather than having an idea of what the finished product would be, and working backwards to achieve it, we started with the "seed idea" of using contact mics to create our piece, and then found something that we though would serve this conception the best.
I think that we didn't really have too many interdisciplinary challenges- we all have different preferences and interests, but I felt that we more or less always spoke the same disciplinary language, and come from a relatively similar creative experience.
While I think our process would work well in a long-term collaboration, because it allows for more full exploration of the field, there were some challenges working in such a limited timeframe. Other groups that had a more clear aesthetic idea were able to progress more quickly because they had a definite conception of what their piece would be, whereas it felt like we spent a long time exploring the contact mic medium before ending up where we did. One method isn't necessarily better than the other, one may just be more appropriate for the circumstances.