Search results

Agile principles have been widely used in software development team practice since the creation of the Agile Manifesto. Studies have examined variables related to agile principles without systematically considering the relationships among key team, agile methodology, and process variables underlying the agile principles and how these variables jointly influence the achievement of software development agility. In this study, the authors tested a team/methodology–process–agility model that links team variables (team autonomy and team competence) and methodological variable (iterative development) to process variables (communication and collaborative decision-making), which are in turn linked to software development agility (ability to sense, respond and learn).

Survey data from one hundred and sixty software development professionals were analyzed using structural equation modeling methods.

The results support the team/methodology–process–agility model. Process variables (communication and collaborative decision-making) mediated the effects of team (autonomy and competence) and methodological (iterative development) variables on software development agility. In addition, team, methodology and process variables had different effects on the three dimensions of software development agility.

The results contribute to the literature on organizational IT management by establishing a team/methodology–process–agility model that can serve as a basis for developing a core theoretical foundation underlying agile principles and practices. The results also have practical implications for organizations in understanding and managing holistically the different roles that agile methodological, team and process factors play in achieving software development agility.

Teamwork is one of the most powerful tools to ensure success across any activity. The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that actively contribute to the effectiveness of teams. This research looks at two different types of teams: care delivery teams representing healthcare and improvement teams representing the manufacturing industry. The aim is to provide greater knowledge about the application of team work factors in different environments.

Qualitative interviews about teamwork factors were conducted with 17 leaders of teams from healthcare and 22 leaders from manufacturing industries. The responses were categorized into different levels according to the application of each factor. Then, the factors were analyzed to draw conclusions about the different approaches to teamwork and their application.

Most of the factors analyzed are highly applied in both sectors. However, we found significant differences between hospitals and the manufacturing industry when it comes to factors such as strategies, feedback on results, leadership, participation and communication.

Measuring each factor in two different sectors (healthcare and industry) has yielded noteworthy findings and the best practices for their implementation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore critical success factors (CSFs) in interdisciplinary building design projects from the view point of the project members themselves. While there is a plethora of research on CSFs, there is a paucity of studies that examine CSFs within this unique project context.

Semi‐structured interviews, a survey and facilitated workshops were used to identify factors and their interrelationships within the project context.

Thirty‐one primary CSFs were distilled which were then further grouped into four interdependent group factors: management factors, design team factors, competencies and resources factors and project enablers. It would appear that there are factors that are particularly important in such project environments, which do not figure strongly in other project environments. These factors are related to the socio‐political dynamics of inter‐disciplinary team work such as passion and enthusiasm, shared values, creativity and innovation and represent so‐called “super soft factors” which reflect personal success and its importance in achieving positive project outcomes.

Although there has been significant research on CSFs in construction projects, little attention has been paid to those which are related to the collaborative design phase of such projects.

The results suggest that it is worthwhile for managers in construction related organisations and beyond to recognise the interdependencies which exist between the project context, processes and the project members' experience and affinity to the project and the team itself in project work to achieve desired outcomes.

This paper extends the CSF literature by identifying the nature of the primary factors and their interrelationships which influence project outcomes in collaborative design projects.

Drawing upon a push-pull-mooring model and the literature on behavioral loyalty, this research aims to examine the underlying factors and mechanisms that influence switching intention in the context of professional sport in Japan.

Using a two-wave survey design (pregame and postgame surveys), we collected data from 367 fans of a professional soccer team in Japan. Our data included three push factors (quality, satisfaction, and perceived value of the current favorite team), a pull factor (alternative team attractiveness), a mooring factor (team identification), and behavioral loyalty and switching intention to the alternative team. We used structural equation modeling to test our hypotheses.

A mediation analysis revealed that perceived value of an individual’s current favorite team was negatively associated with behavioral loyalty to an alternative team, whereas attractiveness of the alternative team was positively associated with behavioral loyalty, which, in turn, resulted in fans’ switching intention. Latent moderated structural equation modeling further revealed the negative moderating effect of team identification with the current team on the relationship between behavioral loyalty and switching intention.

The findings provide new evidence about the role of behavioral loyalty in understanding sport consumers’ switching intention and highlight the importance of team identification that can foster a sustainable and long-term relationship between fans and their favorite sport teams.

This conceptual paper aims to explain the unidirectional cross-level impact of five “organizational-level” factors on “team-level” innovation capability through two “team-level” mediating factors. This multivariate model consists of five organizational-level factors (higher-level) factors – leadership, culture, structure, networks and knowledge – and team-level (lower-level) factors – “innovation capability”, “team-level focus” and “team-level intensity” towards innovation. Understanding the top-down influence of higher-level factors on lower-level ones gives this study a cross-level and unidirectional nature.

A keyword-based approach was used to select “relevant” articles from major journals to collect evidences and develop a conceptual model. All factors in the conceptual model were chosen from the organizational- and the team-level literature. Theoretical background for each of the chosen “factors” has been presented under relevant headings.

First is the conceptualization of team-level mediators – intensity and focus – towards innovation. Second is the conceptualization of innovation capability as a team-level factor, characterized by two sub-dimensions: customer orientation and manifestation.

This conceptual paper does not contain any empirical data analysis. The authors have not considered individual-level factors like individual excellence, personalities, etc., which may impact team-level innovation. They are specifically looking at the top-down “unidirectional” cross-level impact of “higher-level” (organizational-level) factors on “lower-level” (team-level) factor, not the other way around.

Innovation-driven organizations can use this model to build long-term “innovation capabilities” by developing the right kind of “intensity” and “focus” of their R&D teams towards innovation. R&D teams can be encouraged to work closely with their “target” customers and manifest their innovation capabilities (to them) to ensure market success.

Top management can design organizational-level policies to improve their leadership, culture, structure, networks and knowledge to encourage better innovation. Future researchers who wish to study the “cross-level” influence of organizational-level factors on team-level innovation capability may find this paper useful.

This study’s original contributions include: first, the conceptualization of a multivariate “cross-level” model to understand team-level innovation capability. Second is proposing the mediating role of “team-level” factors like focus and intensity while building innovation capability. Third is conceptualizing innovation capability as a team-level construct, with sub-dimensions: customer orientation and manifestation.

The purpose of this paper is to identify, through an exploratory meta-analysis, which process- and outcome-related antecedents have the strongest relationship to overall team performance. The secondary objective is to create an understanding of the extent to which relative research interest in each construct to date has aligned with its reported effects.

This study uses a random-effects meta-analysis on studies that have measured the relationship between at least one process or outcome factor and overall team performance. The number of studies, effect size and between-study variances are captured and analyzed for each process/outcome factor. Prior literature has explored relationships between various process/outcome factors and overall team performance. This study expands on previous literature by examining a comprehensive set of process/outcome factors and their relative impact on overall team performance.

A meta-analysis of 190 effect sizes extracted from 52 empirical studies over the past two decades (1999–2020) showed the specific process and outcome factors that most strongly contributed to overall team performance were efficiency, schedule and innovation. In addition, only a weak correlation was found between process and outcome factors’ relationships with overall team performance and how often they are studied in the research community.

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on team performance by examining prior research to identify the relevant impact of various process and outcome factors on overall team performance. In addition, this study also assesses the extent to which research interest in these factors has appeared to match their relative impact. Analyzing the relative impact of various process and outcome factors allows researchers and practitioners to better identify methods to create improvement in overall team performance. Based on the findings, prioritizing efficiency, schedule and innovation may promote overall team performance.

Innovation among team members has long been an area of interest to social scientists, and particularly to industrial/organizational psychologists. The purpose of this paper is to examine the factor structure of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI), a multidimensional team‐level measure of team‐working style, in Greece.

The TCI was translated into Greek and administered to a total of 52 work teams (n=236 individuals) in clerical and shop floor working positions employed in a variety of jobs in the public and private sector.

An item analysis indicated that all original TCI items, except one, should be retained in the Greek version of the TCI. Further analyses yielded high internal consistency both for the full scale and for the four dimensions, and also acceptable discriminant validity among the four scales. An exploratory factor analysis was also successful in extracting the four original factors, accounting for 55.67 percent of the total variance.

The results provided further support for the validity of the original version of the TCI.

It is concluded that the Greek adaptation of the TCI is a potentially useful instrument to measure group climate dimensions that may facilitate work teams' innovative capacity.

The findings provided support for the adequacy of the TCI to measure team climate for innovation in Greece

This study aims to explore key factors influencing the work of interdisciplinary university research teams of small size.

This is a multiple-case study of four interdisciplinary university research teams of small size in which science and/or engineering was an important component.

Data analysis revealed 17 critical factors classified into five groups. Although some factors were more influential than others, it was rather multiple factors at various levels of analysis, and not a single factor, that influenced the work of research teams. Another important finding was the identified need to develop project management capacity of university researchers. The study also revealed two strategies, conditioned on the availability of funds, that small university research teams use as a way to adapt to situational demands and research opportunities.

Although previous research examined various aspects pertinent to the work of industry research teams and large research groups, empirical research into interdisciplinary university research teams of small size has been limited.

Construction time performance (CTP) factors recently identified in work commissioned by the Construction Industry Institute Australia (CIIA) indicate that project team effectiveness significantly influences CTP. Project complexity also was found to significantly contribute to CTP. However, no residential projects were studied in that survey. This paper reports upon CTP research undertaken into Australian multi‐unit residential construction that fills this theory gap. Results indicate that the construction management (CM) team's effectiveness in managing theconstruction process has a major but not predominant role in influencing CTP. Team communication effectiveness and teamwork factors are also essential factors influencing CTP. Other factors found to affect CTP include: design team's management style; intra‐team working relationships; the degree of experience and expertise for the same type and size of project; procurement method; and the level of the CM team's current workload.

This paper explores the impact of multiple team membership (MTM) on the productivity of team members in engineering consulting firms. MTM refers to employees participating concurrently in multiple teams, a concept closely linked to projectification. Despite the fact that this concept can enhance collaboration, it also introduces coordination challenges that may negatively affect productivity.

Through an inductive approach involving 12 semi-structured interviews with engineering consulting professionals specializing in water and energy infrastructure projects, this paper examines the factors affecting team member productivity in an MTM setting. Following the interviews, a Delphi technique was employed, engaging 16 experts to rank the factors and sub-factors identified from the interview data. This two-stage approach ensured a comprehensive and validated assessment of productivity factors.

This study develops 8 factors process model grounded in structuration theory to explain the socio-technical mechanisms by which multiple team membership shapes productivity outcomes in engineering consulting firms specialized in water and energy infrastructure projects. Key findings surface micro-foundations, tensions in technology provisions, planning processes, and career development that inform theoretical advances and practical improvements.

This research contributes empirically insights into managing MTM in expert service contexts. Applying Giddens' structuration theory, this study reveals how agency and structures shape productivity across organizational, team, and individual levels. In practice, this study provides recommendations for improving productivity within projectified environments, mainly for team members working in an MTM environment in engineering consulting firms specializing in water and energy infrastructure projects.