Search results

This paper aims to assert that teams are a technology used to achieve task goals or social objectives that cannot be accomplished by individuals alone. Much current work in organizations is knowledge based, so it is important to know when to apply teams as a technology and how teams can be effectively utilized for cognitive task performance. This paper describes a number of strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs that accompany teams performing cognitive tasks.

Research comparing team performance to that of similarly treated individuals indicates that teams on average exceed the performance of individuals on cognitive tasks; however, teams rarely match the performance of their best member.

Based on analysis of this research, a set of strengths of teams are highlighted: information pooling, error correction, meta-knowledge, reliability and information sharing. Two weaknesses of team performance on cognitive tasks are also identified: slow to action and coordination losses. As a function of teams having these strengths and weaknesses, trade-offs in their task performance emerge: speed versus accuracy, convergence versus divergence, participation versus deindividuation, losses versus gains in motivation, social facilitation versus inhibition, accumulation versus coordination, focused versus distributed attention and accentuation versus attenuation of biases.

These trade-offs demonstrate that teams operate in specific ways that sometimes benefit cognitive processing but will be hindered under other conditions. An understanding of those conditions is important when attempting to effectively use teams. So, “technical” knowledge rather than intuition is required to manage these processes appropriately and effectively.

The purpose of this research is to aim to improve the cognitive understanding of knowledge processing and provide a cognitive knowledge modeling method in product design.

In this paper, a cognitive model of knowledge processing is described. A cognitive knowledge modeling method is presented. Suggestions on cognitive support for knowledge based systems are provided.

There is often a fundamental mismatch between the way human process knowledge and the way it is processed by technology for supporting product design. It is necessary to develop tools, methods and technology which integrate seamlessly with the design process. This study focuses on the internal human activities and explores knowledge management research from a human factors perspective. Cognitive knowledge modeling will result in a natural integration of knowledge‐based systems into the design process.

This study uses an experimental approach and hopefully the research can therefore be generalized to other situations.

This study provides guidelines for cognitive support for knowledge‐based systems.

Cognitive knowledge processing is described and a cognitive knowledge modeling method is presented. The paper explores knowledge management research by analyzing human activities, in combination with the study of management and engineering technologies.

Despite the potentially vital implications of time pressure for group performance in general and team effectiveness in particular, research has traditionally neglected the study of time limits and group effectiveness. We examine the small, but growing, body of research addressing the effect of time pressure on group performance and introduce our Attentional Focus Model of group effectiveness (Karau & Kelly, 1992). We examine recent research on the utility of the model and identify selected implications of the model for how time pressure may interact with other factors such as task type, group structure, and personality to influence team performance. Finally, we discuss methodological issues of studying attention, interaction processes, and team performance.

Although previous research proved positive impacts of team reflection on team outcomes, especially team performance and innovation, there are only a few insights in to which factors (mediators) account for these positive effects and over what period these effects unfold (temporal effects). To close this gap, this paper aims to investigate the direct effects of team reflection on team performance over time, as well as indirect effects because of the development of similar and accurate team mental models to explain this relationship.

Within a longitudinal experimental study on 22 student project teams working on a complex problem-solving task, the effects of repeated team reflection interventions on the development of team performance and team mental models over six measuring times were analysed.

Results show that team reflections caused significant increases in team performance and team mental models over time. Results also provide evidence that team mental models’ quality mediates the effects of team reflections on team performance.

The results are interesting for both research fields, team reflection and team mental models, as the findings indicate the merits of recurrent reflection for improving team mental models’ quality.

For organisational practice, the question of how reflection processes can be deliberately triggered in teams and effectively integrated into the daily routine should be considered.

The findings accentuate the role of team reflections for improving team performance team mental models over time. By continuous reflecting teams increase awareness and insights into effective team processes and strategies (i.e. shared and accurate team mental models), which lead to better performance.

The purpose of this paper is to present a process for managing project problem‐solving patterns. It focuses on shifting the emphasis of project teams toward a more collaborative and knowledge‐based style of dealing with challenges to project performance. The methods proposed in this paper encourage project managers to integrate processes for becoming more agile by tapping into lesson learned and knowledge gained to create higher quality solutions to problems.

This paper proposes a conceptual framework for recognizing problem‐solving patterns and transforming problem solving from an individual passive event to a more open, agile active, systemic process. Several actual case examples are provided to illustrate applications.

The paper examines how taking a more open approach to problem solving in projects leads to better solutions. The proposed method and lessons from actual cases offer support to these proposals.

The proposed models in this paper originate from the conclusions and observations drawn by the authors over many years of experience. However, they are not the product of a systematic research effort. This paper is intended to provide a new lens for project managers to view projects. It does not purport to declare findings of any research or analyze any sort of research.

The conceptual framework provided in this paper is a practical one derived from the practices used in leading companies. The paper provides practical guidelines to aid project managers in recognizing and managing problem‐solving patterns to create better solutions to problems.

Modern society is plagued by the effects of ineffective problem‐solving initiatives in business, government, and not‐for‐profit organizations. Flawed proposed solutions exact a toll on organizations, their members, and the constituents they serve. This paper proposes a way of improving the quality of problem‐solving processes that may benefit a broad scale of people.

The concept of a problem‐solving pattern and a typology of problem‐solving patterns presented in this paper, provide project managers with a new way of conceiving of how problem solving can be used to improve project performance and adaptability.

This article seeks to address the social aspects of handling knowledge and information. For this purpose, it considers findings from social psychology and discusses their applicability in knowledge management research and practice.

The article presents a selective but systematical review of recent social psychological literature that can be applied for knowledge management purposes.

Two social psychological concepts that strongly influence knowledge processes in organizations are first introduced: social norms and social identity. Two types of social processes that are particularly relevant for knowledge management subsequently take center stage in this article: knowledge sharing and knowledge processing in organizations. The roles social norms and social identity play in knowledge sharing and knowledge processing are then assessed.

Implications for knowledge management practice are considered: among other implications, it is discussed what computer‐mediated support can contribute to knowledge management processes in organizations with respect to both knowledge sharing and knowledge processing.

More studies are beginning to support the role of distributed, as opposed to solo, leadership in team performance, but distributed leadership (DL) has not always been linked to higher performance. It may need to be co‐ordinated, rather than misaligned or fragmented, and may be most effective in teams performing interdependent tasks. DL has not often been linked to team information processing, however; viewing leadership as involving information management, it is proposed that DL may be linked to higher levels of information exchange and information integration, of both shared and unshared information. A series of research propositions are then developed with the purpose of exploring further the role of DL in team decision making, especially in terms of information exchange and information integration processes in Chinese and Western groups.

The paper derives a number of research propositions from the literature on DL and information processing and applies them to decision making by Chinese and Western teams.

The paper presents a series of propositions on the factors affecting the effectiveness of DL and possible differences between Chinese and Western teams.

The paper presents a series of propositions about DL and relates the literature on DL to the literature on information processing in an original way.

This study reviews the construct of analogy as an individual communication mode, examining its relationship with cross-understanding in knowledge-diverse teams. The authors theorize that analogy use enhances team information processing beyond mere communication frequency through bridging knowledge differences across team members. The authors propose that analogies will have a direct relationship to knowledge application, and an indirect effect via cross-understanding. However, communication frequency will have only an indirect effect on knowledge application through cross-understanding.

The authors sampled a 49-member team with 14 subteams, yielding 146 usable dyadic relationships. Two mediation models were estimated while using linear mixed-effect models in SPSS.

The results confirm the importance of analogies and cross-understanding in teams, generally supporting the hypotheses. Mere communication frequency was not related to knowledge application, indicating that “how you say it” may be more important than how often a team member speaks.

This research explored these constructs through a three-week project in a sample of graduate students working with a real-world client. Future research could explore the validity of this model in other organizational settings and test the analogy construct on the team level.

The effectiveness of team member communication should be measured not only as frequency but also in terms of analogies to transmit meaning.

This paper contributes to an understanding of teams as information processors by building empirical support for the utility of analogical communication in design teams, establishing the relationship of analogies to cross-understanding and knowledge application.

Whereas motivation and coordination losses in teams have been investigated for quite some time, systematic research on performance gains in teams (often called “synergetic effects”) only emerged recently. The purpose of the present paper is to clarify the concept of process gains (or synergy) in teams, and to introduce recent findings from basic psychology that can be very valuable for the management of high performing teams.

Based on the definition of synergy as process gain during teamwork compared with a clear baseline (team potential), this review develops specific requirements for the empirical demonstration of synergetic effects in teams. Moreover, a brief history of research on process gains in teams is provided, followed by an outlook on current and future trends in this field.

Although this research is still in its pioneering days, various triggers of process gains in teams have been already derived theoretically and/or demonstrated empirically, among them social support from fellow team members, perceived indispensability for the team outcome, the development and/or selection of experts for task and team processes, use of multiple perspectives and information, team learning, and social identification processes.

Understanding the preconditions and underlying mechanisms of process gains in teams enables managers to trigger performance levels of teams that exceed what can be expected based on the individual team members' capabilities alone. Moreover, the estimation of a team's potential provides a helpful standard for the assessment of the ongoing team performance.

Process gains in teams and related laboratory research have been largely neglected in the managerial literature so far. This paper and the current special issue are among the first to introduce a clear definition of process gains in teams, and to suggest concrete trigger factors of synergetic effects in teams based on systematic research.