MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515877798 · doi:10.1108/tpm-12-2015-0060

Sociotechnical systems design: coordination of virtual teamwork in innovation

2016· article· en· W2515877798 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeam Performance Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
FundersUniversity of WashingtonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSociotechnical systemTeamworkKnowledge managementVirtual teamVirtuality (gaming)Transactive memoryAmbiguityTask (project management)Computer scienceVirtual collaborationProcess managementSystems engineeringEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to report on a qualitative comparative case study of coordination in three ongoing research and development projects, each conducted by teams working virtually across multiple, geographically dispersed sites and involving varying degrees of task uncertainty at differing stages on an innovation continuum, from basic fundamental research to scale-up and commercial development. Design/methodology/approach This study investigated characteristics of effective virtual innovation teamwork, primarily using structured interviews, observation and a limited number of surveys. The analysis was based upon Pava’s (1983) methodology of sociotechnical systems (STS) for non-linear work and was used to assess the influence of virtuality and task uncertainty on the quality of team deliberations and the knowledge development barriers experienced at the various stages on the innovation continuum. Findings The study identified different technical and social coordination mechanisms and their impact in mitigating knowledge barriers for differing levels of task uncertainty. Technical elements, many based in digital information technology, appeared most significant for coordination where task uncertainty and ambiguity were low. However, with high task uncertainty, the most significant mechanisms were closely tied to the formal and informal social systems of virtual organization. Research limitations/implications The key implication for future research is the development of further applications to evaluate this coordination model for modern teamwork in virtual contexts. Practical implications The findings extend previous theory about coordination of innovation to include fundamental research and virtual collaboration. Based on the results, a four-step STS methodology for design of virtual team coordination mechanisms was developed and piloted successfully by scientific teams at a prominent North American research laboratory. Originality/value This research project has shown that modern STS methodology, updated for non-routine work in a virtual context, can provide a way to assess and mitigate “coordination costs” associated with virtual teamwork. Further, it has identified clear categories of coordination mechanisms that are most effective when teams are working at different stages in the innovation process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it