successful teamwork a case study in quality conversations

Pina Tarricone , Edith Cowan University
Joseph Luca , Edith Cowan University

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of: Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002) Successful teamwork: A case study, in Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July 2002: pp 640-646. Available here

Why are some teams successful and others unsuccessful? What criteria or attributes are needed for success? Contemporary teaching and learning practice over the past few years in higher education institutions has seen a proliferation of open-ended constructivist learning designs that incorporate collaboration. This has promoted the need for identifying essential attributes needed for successful teamwork. This study reviews the literature with a view of identifying a framework that educators can use to help promote effective teamwork in their classes. A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context. Attributes gleaned from the literature for successful teamwork was used to compare the two diverse teams.

Communication Technology and New Media

free_to_read

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia

Search form

About HERDSA
HERDSA Conference
Publications
Events Calendar

Research and Development in Higher Education Vol. 25: Quality Conversations

Keywords: Teamwork, higher education, authentic environment

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Successful teamwork: A case study ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦9

Related Papers

Neda Abbasi

This paper reports on the early findings of an Australian Learning Teaching Council (ALTC/OLT) funded project – “Enhancing and Assessing Group and Team Learning in Architecture and Related Design Contexts.” This is a two-year project investigating good practice in Australian higher education for the teaching of teamwork in the design disciplines, with a focus on architecture. Drawing upon a review of the literature and discussions with teachers and practitioners, the paper considers how teamwork is conceived in the context of the design disciplines. The paper explores notions of team and group design activities in the literature, identifying the key elements and characteristics of effective teams and groups. While a great deal of research exists on effective teamwork in organizational, management and general education literature, this research found a clear gap in knowledge relating to teaching teamwork in architecture and related design contexts. Suggestions are made about the ways in which theories on effective teamwork in organisations might elucidate teaching and assessment of effectively functioning student design teams. The literature review prompted five key questions, outlined here, around the conceptualisation of teamwork in design education that were subsequently discussed with educators and practitioners, thus allowing the identification of issues, problems and solutions common to all fields of design.

Journal of Information Systems Education

Kathrin Figl

Martin Murray

International Journal of Project Management

Bernard Baiden , Andrew Price

Geographical …

Beverley Clarke

Fay Sudweeks

Web-based learning environments provide an attractive method for information dissemination, but in many instances they can be just electronic equivalents of printed course materials. Appropriate learning objectives and pedgagogical strategies are minimal or non-existent. Too often web-based learning environments lack cooperative and collaborative activities with the unintended consequence of feelings of social isolation. This paper describes a case study in which critical elements of online learning settings (Oliver, 2001) were implemented along with essential attributes for effective teamwork. Analyses of student que stionnaires indicate that students gained significant benefits from the instructional design of both the learning environment and the collaborative activity – without meeting face-to-face.

nandit jadvani

Jos Fransen

Collaborative learning is an often used pedagogical approach for achieving goals such as knowledge construction, product development and teamwork skills acquisition. In such cases, team effectiveness is conditional for both team performance and learning quality which in turn requires the learning-team to develop from a group of individual students into a functioning team. Since students often have little to say about team composition and learning task, and only collaborate for restricted periods of time on collaborative assignments, learning-teams in higher education are often not effective. To remedy this, we need to determine and understand the variables that influence learning-team effectiveness; the main goal of this research. Based on work-team effectiveness models, a conceptual framework was developed with key variables mediating learning-team effectiveness in either face-to-face or online settings within the perspective of learning-team evolution and maturation. Core aspects ...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Transforming knowledge into …

Uma Sundaram

Agaba Herbert

Journal of Engineering Education

Paul Swamidass

Bruce Millett

The Library

Successful teamwork:a case study., full record, online access, collections.

entitlement

Show Statistical Information

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

🇺🇦 make metadata, not war

Successful teamwork: A case study

Pina Tarricone
higher education
authentic environment

Similar works

This paper was published in CiteSeerX .

Having an issue?

Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

The Secrets of Great Teamwork

Martine Haas
Mark Mortensen

successful teamwork a case study in quality conversations

Over the years, as teams have grown more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic, collaboration has become more complex. But though teams face new challenges, their success still depends on a core set of fundamentals. As J. Richard Hackman, who began researching teams in the 1970s, discovered, what matters most isn’t the personalities or behavior of the team members; it’s whether a team has a compelling direction, a strong structure, and a supportive context. In their own research, Haas and Mortensen have found that teams need those three “enabling conditions” now more than ever. But their work also revealed that today’s teams are especially prone to two corrosive problems: “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information. Overcoming those pitfalls requires a new enabling condition: a shared mindset.

This article details what team leaders should do to establish the four foundations for success. For instance, to promote a shared mindset, leaders should foster a common identity and common understanding among team members, with techniques such as “structured unstructured time.” The authors also describe how to evaluate a team’s effectiveness, providing an assessment leaders can take to see what’s working and where there’s room for improvement.

Collaboration has become more complex, but success still depends on the fundamentals.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Teams are more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic than ever before. These qualities make collaboration especially challenging.

The Analysis

Mixing new insights with a focus on the fundamentals of team effectiveness identified by organizational-behavior pioneer J. Richard Hackman, managers should work to establish the conditions that will enable teams to thrive.

The Solution

The right conditions are

a compelling direction
a strong structure
a supportive context, and
a shared mindset

Weaknesses in these areas make teams vulnerable to problems.

Today’s teams are different from the teams of the past: They’re far more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic (with frequent changes in membership). But while teams face new hurdles, their success still hinges on a core set of fundamentals for group collaboration.

Martine Haas is the Lauder Chair Professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of the Lauder Institute for Management & International Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She holds a PhD from Harvard University. Her research focuses on collaboration and teamwork in global organizations.
Mark Mortensen is a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD and for over 20 years has studied and consulted on collaboration and organization design, with a focus on hybrid, virtual, and globally distributed work. Mark publishes regularly in Harvard Business Review , MIT Sloan Management Review , and INSEAD Knowledge, and is a regular fixture in popular press outlets like the BBC, the Economist , the Financial Times , and Fortune .

Partner Center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 06 May 2021

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Hannah B. Love ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0011-1328 1 ,
Jennifer E. Cross ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5582-4192 2 ,
Bailey Fosdick ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3736-2219 2 ,
Kevin R. Crooks 2 ,
Susan VandeWoude 2 &
Ellen R. Fisher 3

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8 , Article number: 106 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9876 Accesses

17 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Complex networks
Science, technology and society

Scientists are increasingly charged with solving complex societal, health, and environmental problems. These systemic problems require teams of expert scientists to tackle research questions through collaboration, coordination, creation of shared terminology, and complex social and intellectual processes. Despite the essential need for such interdisciplinary interactions, little research has examined the impact of scientific team support measures like training, facilitation, team building, and expertise. The literature is clear that solving complex problems requires more than contributory expertise, expertise required to contribute to a field or discipline. It also requires interactional expertise, socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group. These forms of expertise are often tacit and therefore difficult to access, and studies about how they are intertwined are nearly non-existent. Most of the published work in this area utilises archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment. This study addresses the call of numerous studies to use mixed-methods and social network analysis to investigate scientific team formation and success. This longitudinal case-based study evaluates the following question: How are scientific productivity, advice, and mentoring networks intertwined on a successful interdisciplinary scientific team? This study used applied social network surveys, participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and historical social network data to assess this specific team and assessed processes and practices to train new scientists over a 15-year period. Four major implications arose from our analysis: (1) interactional expertise and contributory expertise are intertwined in the process of scientific discovery; (2) team size and interdisciplinary knowledge effectively and efficiently train early career scientists; (3) integration of teaching/training, research/discovery, and extension/engagement enhances outcomes; and, (4) interdisciplinary scientific progress benefits significantly when interpersonal relationships among scientists from diverse disciplines are formed. This case-based study increases understanding of the development and processes of an exemplary team and provides valuable insights about interactions that enhance scientific expertise to train interdisciplinary scientists.

Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study

Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration

A framework for developing team science expertise using a reflective-reflexive design method (R2DM)

Introduction.

Scientists are increasingly charged with solving complex and large-scale societal, health, and environmental challenges (Read et al., 2016 ; Stokols et al., 2008 ). These systemic problems require interdisciplinary teams to tackle research questions through collaboration, coordination, creation of shared terminology, and complex social and intellectual processes (Barge and Shockley-Zalabak, 2008 ; De Montjoye et al., 2014 ; Fiore, 2008 ). Thus, to successfully approach complex research questions, scientific teams must synthesise knowledge from different disciplines, create a shared terminology, and engage members of a diverse research community (Matthews et al., 2019 ; Read et al., 2016 ). Despite significant time, energy, and money spent on collaboration and interdisciplinary projects, little research has examined the impact of scientific team support measures like training, facilitation, team building, and team performance metrics (Falk-Krzesinski et al., 2011 ; Klein et al., 2009 ).

Studies examining the development of scientific teaming skills that result in successful outcomes are sparse (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). The earliest studies of collaboration in science used bibliometric data to search for predictors of team success such as team diversity, size, geographical proximity, inter-university collaboration, and repeat collaborations (Borner et al., 2010 ; Cummings and Kiesler, 2008 ; Wuchty et al., 2007 ). Building from these studies, current research focuses on team processes. Literature suggests that to successfully frame a scientific problem, a team must also engage emotionally and interact effectively (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ) and that scientific collaboration involve consideration of the process, collaborator, human capital, and other factors that define an scientific collaboration (Bozeman et al., 2013 ; Hall et al., 2019 ; Lee and Bozeman, 2005 ). Similarly, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) used social network analysis to examine how emotional intelligence is transmitted to team outcomes through team processes. Still more research is needed, and Hall et al. ( 2018 ) called for team science studies that use longitudinal designs and mixed-methods to examine project teams as they develop in order to move beyond bibliometric measures of success and to explore the complex, interacting features in real-world teams.

Fiore ( 2008 ) explained that much of what we know about the science of team science (SciTS), training scientists and team learning in productive team interactions, is anecdotal and not the result of systematic investigation (Fiore, 2008 ). Over a decade later there is still a paucity of research on how scientific teams develop the type of expertise they need to create new knowledge and further scientific discovery (Bammer et al., 2020 ). Bammer et al. ( 2020 ) has identified and defined two types of expertise: (1) contributory expertise, expertise required to make a contribution to a field or discipline (Collins and Evans, 2007 ); and (2) interactional expertise, socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group (Bammer et al., 2020 ). These forms of expertise are often tacit, codified by “learning-by-doing,” and augmented from project to project; therefore, they are difficult to measure and rarely documented in literature (Bammer et al., 2020 ).

Wooten et al. ( 2014 ) outlined three types of evaluations—developmental, process, and outcome—needed to understand how teams develop and to provide information about their future success (Wooten et al., 2014 ). A developmental evaluation focuses on the continuous process of team development, and a process evaluation focuses on team interactions, meetings, and engagement (Patton, 2011 ). Both development and process evaluations have the common goal of understanding the team’s future success or failures, also known as the team’s outcomes (e.g., grants, publications, and awards) (Patton, 2011 ). The majority of published work on outcome metrics is evaluated by archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment (Hall et al., 2018 ). Albeit informative, these studies are based upon limited outcome metrics such as publications and represent only a selective sampling of teams that have achieved success. To collect these three types of evaluation data, it is recommended to engage mixed-methods research such as a combination of social network analysis (SNA), participant observation, surveys, and interviews, although these approaches have not been widely employed (Bennett, 2011 ; Borner et al., 2010 ; Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ).

A few key studies have provided insight into successful collaboration strategies. Duhigg ( 2016 ) found that successful teams provided psychological safety, had dependable team members, and relied upon clear roles and structures. In addition, successful teams had meaningful goals, and team members felt like they could make an impact through their work on the team (Duhigg, 2016 ). Similarly, Collins ( 2001 ) explained that in business teams, moving from “Good to Great” required more than selecting the right people; the team needed development and training to achieve their goals (Collins, 2001 ). Woolley et al. ( 2010 ) found that it is not collective intelligence that builds the most effective teams, but rather, how teams interact that predicts their success (Woolley et al., 2010 ). The three traits they identified as most associated with team success included even turn-taking, social sensitivity, and proportion female (when women’s representation nears parity with men) (Woolley et al., 2010 ). Finally, Bammer et al. ( 2020 ) recommended creating a knowledge bank to strengthen knowledge about contributary and interactional expertise in scientific literature to solve complex problems. Collectively, these studies argue that the key to collective intelligence is highly reliant on interpersonal relationships to drive team success.

This article reports on a longitudinal case-based study of an exemplary interdisciplinary scientific team that has been successful in typical scientific outputs, including competing for research awards, publishing academic articles, and training and developing scientists. This analysis examines how scientific productivity, advice, and mentoring networks intertwined to promote team success. The study highlights how the team’s processes to train scientists (e.g., developing mentoring and advice networks) have propelled their scientific productivity, fulfilled the University’s land grant mission (i.e., emphasises research/discovery; education/training; and outreach/engagement) and created contributory and interactional expertise on the team. Team dynamics were evaluated by social network surveys, participant observation, focus groups, interviews, and historical social network data over 15 years to develop theory and evaluate complex relationships contributing to team success (Dozier et al., 2014 ; Greenwood, 1993 ).

Case study selection

The [BLIND] Science of team science (SciTS) team consisted of scientists trained in four different disciplines and research administrators. The SciTS team monitored twenty-five interdisciplinary teams at [BLIND] for 5 years from initiation of team formation to identify team dynamics that related to team success. This case is thus presented as part of an ongoing study of the 25 teams, supported by efforts through the [BLINDED] to encourage and enhance collaborative, interdisciplinary research and scholarship. Team outcomes were recorded annually and included extramural awards, publications, presentations, students trained, and training outcomes. An exemplary case-based study is appropriate when the case is unusual, the issues are theoretically important, and there are practical implications (Yin, 2017 ). Further, cases can illustrate examples of expertise and provide guidance to future teams (Bammer et al., 2020 ). An “exemplary team designation” was given to this team by the SciTS evaluators. Metrics used to designate an exemplary team included: team outcomes; highly interdisciplinary research; longevity of the team; fulfilment of all aspects of the land grant mission (research/discovery; education/training; and outreach/engagement); integration of team members; and use of external reviewers.

Social network survey

The exemplary team included Principle Investigators (PIs), postdoctoral researchers (postdocs), graduate students, undergraduate students, and active collaborators external to the University. The entire team was surveyed annually 2015–2019 about the extent and type of collaboration with other team members. In 2015, the team was asked about prior collaborations, and in subsequent years they were asked about additional interactions since joining the team. Possible collaborative activities included research publications, scientific presentations, grant proposals, and serving on student committees. Team members were also asked the types of relationships they had with each team member, including learning, leadership, mentoring, advice, friendship, and having fun (Supplementary 2 ). Data were collected using a voluntary online survey tool (Organisational Network Analysis Surveys). All subjects were identified by name on the social network survey but are not identified in any network diagrams or analyses. SNA software programmes R Studio (R Studio Team, 2020 ) and UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2014 ) were used to analyse data and Visone (Brandes and Wagner, 2011 ) was used to create visualisations. The response rate for the survey was 94% in 2015, 83% in 2016, 95% in 2017, and 81% in 2018. All data collection methods were performed with the informed consent of the participants and followed Institutional Review Board protocol #19-8622H.

Data from the social network survey were combined to create three different network measures: scientific productivity, mentoring, and advice. The scientific productivity network was a combination of four survey measures: research/consulting, grants, publications, and serving on student committees. Scientific productivity represents a form of cognitive or contributory expertise: expertise required to contribute to a field or discipline (Bammer et al., 2020 ; Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ). The mentoring and advice networks were created from social network survey questions: “who is your mentor?” and “who do you go to for advice?”, respectively. Mentor and advice are tacit forms of interactional expertise: socialised knowledge that includes socialisation into the practices of an expert group (Collins and Evans, 2007 ). Other studies have also found a connection between social characteristics of interdisciplinary work and other factors like productivity, career paths, and a group’s ability to exchange information, interact, and explore together (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ).

Social network data were summarised using average degree, sometimes split into indegree and outdegree. Outdegree is a measure of how many team members a given individual reported getting advice, or mentorship, from. Similarly, the indegree of an individual is a measure of how many other team members reported receiving advice, or mentorship, from that person. Average degree is the average number of immediate connections (i.e., indegree plus outdegree) for a person in a network (Giuffre, 2013 ; R. Hanneman and Riddle, 2005 a, 2005 b). To further explore the mentoring and advice networks, we calculated the average degree/outdegree/indegree of postdocs, graduate students, and faculty separately to directly compare demographic groups.

The advice, mentoring, and scientific productivity networks were directly compared using the Pearson correlation between the corresponding network adjacency matrices. We predicted a positive correlation between the advice, mentoring, and scientific productivity matrices. Statistical significance ( p < 0.05) of correlations was assessed with the network permutation-based method Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) (R. A. Hanneman and Riddle, 2005 a, 2005 b).

Historical social network data

A historical network survey was created to determine how the connections in the network formed, developed, and changed from project-to-project. The historical social network was constructed from three forms of data: interviews with the PIs, a historical narrative written by the PIs describing the team formation process, and team rosters that listed the 81 team members since the inception of the team.

Retrospective team survey

A retrospective team survey was administered at the end of the study to determine what skills team members developed and codified through participating on the team, how membership on the team supported members personally and professionally, and their favourite aspects of the team. The survey was sent to 22 members from the 2018 team roster using Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, 2005 ) with an 86% response rate.

Two semi-structured, one-hour interviews were conducted with two PIs in 2018 to learn about the history of the team. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.

Participant observations

Participant observation was conducted from 2015–2019 at four annual three-day, off-campus retreats and 1–2 additional meetings each year. Students, PIs, external collaborators, and families were all invited to attend the retreats and meetings. Field notes about team interactions were recorded immediately after each interaction. The analytic field notes captured how team members interacted across disciplines, tackled scientific problems, and engaged with others at different career stages. Analysis occurred as field notes were written, during observations, and again during data analysis.

An exemplary team

The SciTS Team identified one team from the larger study and designated it as exemplary based on six (tacit and non-tacit) elements. First, the team had outstanding team outcomes. From 2004–2018, notable accomplishments include 33 extramural awards totalling over $5.6 million, including two large federal awards totalling over $4.5 million; 58 peer-reviewed publications with 39 different universities, 13 state agencies, and 11 other organisations; 141 presentations, 21 graduate students and 15 postdocs trained; and receipt of an [BLIND]institution-wide Interdisciplinary Scholarship Team Award. Participants received many individual honours, including one of the PIs being named to the National Academy of Sciences.

Second, this interdisciplinary team combined scientific expertise from many different backgrounds, including ecologists, wildlife biologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, veterinarians, and numerous collaborators. Principal Investigators were housed in five main universities: Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, University of Minnesota, University of California-Davis, and University of Tasmania. They also engaged collaborators from national and international universities, federal, state, and local governmental agencies, veterinary centres, and animal shelters. Collectively, team members represented 39 different universities, 11 federal agencies, 13 state agencies, and 11 other organisations listed on their peer-reviewed publications. The team has published globally with co-authors from every continent but Antarctica.

The third element identified was the team’s 15-year history and how they evolved project-to-project (Supplementary Video S1 ). In 2003, a graduate student proposed a collaborative research project between two faculty members who became two of the founding team PIs (Fig. 1 ). The team was formed in 2004 with four members—two faculty PIs, a postdoc, and a Ph.D. student (Fig. 1 ). Initial grant proposals submitted in 2005 and 2006 were not funded; however, in 2007, the team received a large federal research award from the US National Science Foundation (NSF). The team roster increased from four to nine, and a second large expansion occurred after receipt of another NSF award in 2012. By 2014, membership increased to 31 people, and at the end of analysis in 2018, the roster comprised 43 members. Over the course of observation, 81 different individuals, including students, faculty, and collaborators, had participated in research activities supported by the team.

Significant events occurring over 15 years during the development and formation of an exemplary team.

The fourth reason this team was deemed exemplary was because it intertwined the components in the Land Grand mission, including research/discovery, teaching/training, and extension/engagement (Fig. 2 ). The team included undergraduates conducting research and presenting at conferences, graduate students working in multiple labs, and postdocs mentoring all the researchers in the lab. An external advisor said at the end of a retreat, “It’s really cool that students are part of the conversations that are both good/bad/ugly etc. It is not just good. It is not just one-on-one conversations. They hear it all.” A Ph.D. student wrote in the Retrospective Survey about the skills he developed: “I have developed the ability to talk about my research to people outside my field. I have also worked on broadening my understanding of disease ecology as a whole. I have been given the opportunity [to] begin placing my work in the larger framework of ecosystem health.” Faculty also wrote about what they learned, “[I] Learned from leadership of team (especially [blinded], and other PIs) how to develop and conduct research team work well - am using what I am learning to develop new research teams…. how to develop and nurture and respect interpersonal relationships and diversity of opinions. This has been an amazing experience, to be part of a well-functioning team, and to examine why and how that is maintained”

The team grew from 4 members in 2004 to 42 members in 2018. Much of the growth occurred by the addition of students and external collaborators.

Fifth, the team was effective at onboarding and integrating new members. To do so, they used two key strategies (Fig. 3 ). First, 15 of the students held co-advised graduate research positions. This shared model of mentorship provided students with opportunities to work in multiple labs, collaborate with additional team members, and gain a broader academic experience. A Ph.D. student wrote in the Retrospective Survey about the skills she learned from being a member of the team: “Leadership skills, communicating science to those in other fields, scientific writing skills, technical laboratory skills, interpersonal communication skills, data sharing experience, and many others.” The shared model supported the team’s interdisciplinary mission by providing opportunities to train future scientists to communicate, network, and conduct research across disciplines. Second, as team members developed through participation on the team, they assumed more mature scientific roles. Fourteen members of the team changed positions within the team. Many of these transitions were from undergraduate student to Ph.D. student or Ph.D. student to postdoctoral researcher. In 2012, one postdoc became a PI on the grant.

Social network diagrams of team growth and development from 2004–2018. This network reports onboarding and integration of all members, including their primary position when they joined the team. The nodes are sized by average degree (see text). Colours denote different roles on the team.

Finally, the 2018 team retreat included external reviewers. At the end of 2018 team retreat, they were asked if they had any feedback for the team. An external reviewer said: “You can check all of the boxes of a good team.”; “This is a dream team.”; “I am really impressed.”. Another external reviewer said:

The ambitiousness to execute the scope of the project, to have this many PIs, to be able to communicate; the opportunities for new insights; and the opportunities it presents for trainees are rare. There are a lot of people exposed in this. This is a unique experience for someone in training. And it extends to elementary school. I don’t think there are many projects that have this type of scope. I was impressed with just the idea that scientists are taking this across such a great scope and taking on such great questions.

Scientific productivity network

Prior to 2016, the average degree of the scientific productivity network was 8.8 (Fig. 4 ). In 2016, four faculty nodes were in the core of the network, and the periphery nodes included graduate students, postdocs, and external collaborators (Fig. 5 ). The average degree dropped slightly to 6.2 when the team integrated new members and re-formed around new roles and responsibilities on a new grant (Fig. 4 ). In 2017, the average degree peaked at 9.7 (Fig. 4 ) and faculty were still core, but graduate students and postdocs were more central than before (Fig. 5 ). During this time, productivity was at its highest as team members were working together to meet the objectives of a 5-year interdisciplinary NSF award. The network evolved further in 2018; two of the postdoc nodes overlapped with the faculty nodes in the core of the network (Fig. 5 ).

Average degree of social networks diagrams (mentoring, advice, scientific productivity) indicated strong social ties among team members.

Social network measures of productivity (research/consulting, grants, publications, and serving on student committees) were recorded over time. Each node represents a person on the team, and nodes are sized by average degree (see text). Colours denote different roles on the team. The node label indicates the number of years a person has been part of the team.

Mentoring is integral in the collaborative network

Team members reported between an average of 2.4–3.1 mentors (average outdegree) each year on the team (Fig. 6 ). More specifically, graduate students reported 6.0–7.7 mentors, whereas postdocs reported 2.4–3.5 mentors (Table 1 ). Faculty team members reported having an average of 2.2 to 4.3 mentors on the team (Table 1 ), with the highest average outdegree in 2018.

This diagram was created by using participant answers to the social network question, “who is your mentor?” Each circle or node represents a person on the team. The nodes are sized by outdegree to show who reported receiving mentorship. Node size indicates how many mentors an individual reported, and arrows indicate nodes that served as mentors. Colours denote different roles on the team.

The highest indegree for an individual was the lead PI, with an indegree ranging from 13 to 14 each year (i.e., each year, 13–14 team members reported this individual provided mentorship). In response to an interview question about this PIs favourite part of the team, this individual said, “…and of course, I really like the mentorship of the students…They are initially naive, and some people are initially underconfident, but eventually they become fluent in their subject area.” Many students wrote about the mentoring they received from the team. An undergraduate student wrote:

I have improved my communication skills after needing to collaborate with several mentors across different time zones. I’ve also improved willingness to ask questions when I don’t understand a concept. I’ve also learned what concepts I find basic in my field that others outside my discipline are less familiar with.

Faculty also wrote about the mentoring they received, such as, “I continually learn from members in the team and mentorship by the more experienced members has supported my own career progression.”

Advice is integral in the collaborative network

In the 2015–2017 advice network diagrams, the faculty were tightly clustered (Fig. 7 ). In 2018, the cluster separated as postdocs and graduate students joined the centre of the network. On average, team members reported 5.1 to 6.4 people they could go to for advice (Fig. 4 ).

This diagram was created by using participant answers to the social network question, “who do you go to for advice?” Each circle or node represents a person on the team. The nodes are sized by outdegree to show who reported receiving mentorship. Node size indicates how many mentors an individual reported, and arrows indicate nodes that served as mentors. Colours denote different roles on the team.

In a survey, faculty responded to the question, “How has the team supported you personally and professionally?” One faculty member wrote: “Just today I asked three members of the team for professional advice! And got a thoughtful and prompt response from all.” Another team member wrote: “Being a member of the…team has allowed me to develop skills in statistical analysis, scientific writing, and critical thinking. This team has opened my eyes to what is possible to achieve with science and has provided me with opportunities to network and expand my horizons both within the field of study and outside of it.” These quotes further suggest that the mentoring and advice from a large interdisciplinary team were important to train future scientists.

Interpersonal relationships as driver for scientific productivity

The mentoring and advice networks supported and built on the scientific productivity network and vice versa. The correlation between the collaboration, mentoring, and advice networks would not be possible if the networks were not intertwined. In the retrospective survey, a faculty member described how tacit interpersonal relationships were correlated with their scientific productivity:

Being a part of this grant has helped me both personally and professionally by teaching me new skills (disease ecology, team dynamics), developing friendships/mentors from the team, and strengthening my CV and dossier for promotion to early full professorship.

A Ph.D. student also described how the relationships on the large team propelled their research.

Membership on this team has provided me with a lot of mentorship that I would not otherwise receive were I not working on a large multi-disciplinary for my doctoral research. It has also allowed me to network more effectively.

Between 2015 and 2018, the mentor and advice networks were significantly correlated with the scientific productivity network, demonstrating that personal relationships are associated with scientific collaboration (Table 2 ).

To date, the literature examining successful interdisciplinary scientific team skills that result in successful outcomes is sparse (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). The majority of published work in this area is evaluated by archival data analysis, not individual team behaviour and assessment (Hall et al., 2018 ). This study answers the call of numerous researchers to use mixed-methods and SNA to investigate scientific teams (Bennett, 2011 ; Borner et al., 2010 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Woolley et al., 2010 ; Wooten et al., 2015 ). Our case-based study also increases understanding of the development and processes of an exemplary team by providing valuable insights about how the interactions that enhance scientific productivity are synergistic with the interactions that train future scientists. There are four major implications of our findings: (1) interactional and contributory expertise are intertwined; (2) team size, tacit knowledge gained from previous project, and interdisciplinary knowledge were used to effectively and efficiently train scientists; (3) the team increased scientific productivity through interpersonal relationships; and (4) the team fulfilled the land grant mission of the University by integrating teaching/training, research/discovery, and extension/engagement into the team’s activities.

Interactive and contributory expertise are intertwined

Previous literature on scientific teams has found that great teams are not built on scientific expertise alone, but on the processes and interactions that build psychological safety, create a shared language, engage members emotionally, and promote effective interactions (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Hall et al., 2019 ; Senge, 1991 ; Woolley et al., 2010 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). The team highlighted in this report created a shared language and vision through the mentoring and advice networks that helped fuel the team’s scientific productivity (Hall et al., 2012 ). To solve complex problems requires more than contributory expertise, it also requires interactional expertise (Bammer et al., 2020 ). These forms of expertise are often tacit and internalised through the process of becoming an expert in a field of study (Collins and Evans, 2007 ). Learning-by-doing is augmented from project-to-project, with expertise codified over time (Bammer et al., 2020 ). Further, cognitive, emotional, and interactions are key components of successful collaborations (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Bozeman et al., 2013 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). Using social network analysis, our case-based analysis found that the mentoring and advice ties were intertwined with the scientific productivity network.

Training scientists to be experts

The Retrospective Survey asked what personal and professional skills respondents learned from being a member of a team. We hypothesised that many respondents would report tangible skills. Surprisingly, 82% of the open-ended responses were about tacit skills. Students frequently had co-advised graduate research positions, worked in multiple labs, and communicated regularly with practitioners. Moreover, the team translated research to different disciplines within the team, mentored others, and managed interpersonal conflicts. These interactions built expertise because training was not limited to research in a single lab or only in an academic setting. Simple, discrete, and codified knowledge is relatively easy to transfer; however, teams need stronger relationships to gain complex and tacit knowledge, (Attewell, 1992 ; Simonin, 1999 ). On this team, interactions and the ability to practice communication were especially influential for students, junior scientists, and new members. These individuals provided survey responses reporting they learned a wide variety of skills ranging from leadership, scientific and interpersonal communication, networking across disciplines, scientific writing, laboratory techniques, and data sharing standards. Further, respondents noted they had gained experience in developing, nurturing, and respecting interpersonal relationships and diversity of opinions. This was reinforced with participant observation data. In other interdisciplinary groups studied in conjunction with this exemplary team, students were not typically exposed to the inner workings of the team such as leadership meetings. On this team, students were exposed to all conversations, which became an important component of the mentoring and advice structure, serving to train future scientists in all aspects of team integration and leadership development. Belonging to this large interdisciplinary team was effectively training, building, and structuring the team.

Interpersonal relationships increase scientific productivity

Longevity of relationships is an important factor in creating social cohesion, reducing uncertainty, and increasing reliability and reciprocity (Baum et al., 2007 ; Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Previous literature has, however, rarely documented the importance of time in building the structure of the network (Phelps et al., 2012 ) and few longitudinal studies of scientific teams exist. Further, it has long been hypothesised that greater interaction among people increases the quality and innovativeness of ideas generated, which may in turn increase productivity (Cimenler et al., 2016 ). Our case-based study found that the mentoring and advice ties existed in a symbiotic relationship with the scientific productivity network where the practices of the team were simultaneously training scientists. This aligns with social network literature that interactions can structure the social network and the network structure influences interactions (Henry, 2009 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Second, intentional mentoring programmes have demonstrated a positive relationship between interdisciplinary mentoring and increased research productivity outcomes such as grant funding and publications (Spence et al., 2018 ). Finally, this finding also aligns with literature on the generation of new knowledge (Phelps et al., 2012 ). Knowledge creation has traditionally been framed in terms of individual creativity, but recent studies have placed more emphasis on how the contribution of social dynamics are influential in explaining this process (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 1998 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ; Sawyer, 2003 ; Zhang et al., 2009 ). Thus, while we might think that science drives the team, in this case-based study, the team’s interpersonal relationships were the driver of the team’s scientific productivity.

Fulfilling the land grant mission

As noted above, this exemplary team fulfilled all three goals of the land grant mission. First, the team was training scientists at all levels, from undergraduate students, to graduate students, postdocs, new faculty, and external collaborators, including community partners. In many instances, the training and mentoring was structured in a vertically integrated manner. For example, postdocs were training graduate and undergraduate students, typical of many teams. In addition to the “top-down” scenarios, however, the team also encouraged training that went from the bottom up as well. Effectively, this is a hallmark of successful teams in other sectors such as emergency responders and elite military teams – whomever has the knowledge to drive the issue at hand is the effective “leader” in that mission (Kotler and Wheal, 2008 ). Second, the team excelled in research and discovery, partnering with a diversity of external collaborators to do so. This created a network structure wherein the team clearly utilised the collaborators for mentoring and advice. Organisations with a core-periphery network structure like this team have been reported to be more creative because ties on the periphery, such as external collaborators, can span boundaries and access diverse information (Perry-Smith, 2006 ; Phelps et al., 2012 ). Finally, because the team’s collaborators included community partners and practitioners, they were also influencing policy and practice. This resulted in an overall greater impact for the team’s science and allowed them to tailor their research to best meet the needs of society (Barge and Shockley-Zalabak, 2008 ).

Future research

This study provides a unique contribution to team science literature because it longitudinally studied the development and processes of a successful interdisciplinary team (Wooten et al., 2014 ). Future research on the elements of effective interdisciplinary teaming is required in five key areas. First, identification of best practices that inhibit or support teams is necessary (Fiore, 2008 ; Hall et al., 2018 ; Wooten et al., 2014 ). Second, previous research has found that small teams are best at disrupting science with new ideas and opportunities (Wu et al., 2019 ); however, practices large teams use to create new knowledge have been poorly documented. Third, successful training concepts for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers need additional consideration (Knowlton et al., 2014 ; Ryan et al., 2012 ; Sarraj et al., 2017 ). Fourth, we hypothesise that graduate students act as bridges in teams to connect scientific disciplines and prevent clustering the network. Future research should investigate the role of graduate students in creating knowledge through interdisciplinary teams. Finally, additional research is needed to better recognise and reward scientists who undertake integration and implementation (Bammer et al., 2020 ).

Data availability

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available in the Mountain Scholar repository, https://doi.org/10.25675/10217/214187

Attewell P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organ Sci 3(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.1.1

Article Google Scholar

Bammer G, O’Rourke M, O’Connell D, Neuhauser L, Midgley G, Klein JT, … Richardson GP (2020). Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Commun, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0

Barge JK, Shockley-Zalabak P (2008) Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. J Appl Commun Res 36(3):251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880802172277

Baum JAC, McEvily B, Rowley T (2007) Better with age? Tie longevity and the performance implications of bridging and closure. SSRN (vol. 23). INFORMS. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1032282

Bennett ML (2011) Collaboration and team science: a field guide-team science toolkit. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/TSResourceTool.aspx?tid=1&rid=267

Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci Technol Human Value 41(4):571–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915614103

Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2014) UCINET. Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining. Springer New York, New York, NY, 10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_316

Google Scholar

Borner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, Uzzi B (2010). A multi-level systems perspective for the science. Sci Transl Med 2: 49

Bozeman B, Fay D, Slade CP (2013, February 28). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. J Technol Transf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8

Brandes U, Wagner D (2011) Analysis and visualization of social networks. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 321–340. 10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_15

Cimenler O, Reeves KA, Skvoretz J, Oztekin A (2016) A causal analytic model to evaluate the impact of researchers’ individual innovativeness on their collaborative outputs. J Model Manag 11(2):585–611

Collins H, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book Google Scholar

Collins JC (2001) Good to great. HarperBusiness, New York, NY

Csikszentmihalyi M (1998) Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In: Sternberg R (ed) Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–336. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807916.018

Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2008) Who collaborates successfully? prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Cscw: 2008 Acm conference on computer supported cooperative work, Conference Proceedings, pp. 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460633

De Montjoye YA, Stopczynski A, Shmueli E, Pentland A, Lehmann S (2014) The strength of the strongest ties in collaborative problem solving. Sci Rep 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05277

Dozier AM, Martina CA, O’Dell NL, Fogg TT, Lurie SJ, Rubinstein EP, Pearson TA (2014) Identifying emerging research collaborations and networks: method development. Eval Health Prof 37(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713501693

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Duhigg Ch (2016) What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team-The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html

Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, Keyton J, Trochim W (2011) Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res Eval 20(2):145–158. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876580

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fiore SM (2008) Interdisciplinarity as teamwork. Small Group Res 39(3):251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797

Giuffre K (2013) Communities and networks: using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies, 1st edn. Polity Press, Cambridge MA, 10.1177/0042098015621842

Greenwood RE (1993) The case study approach. Bus Commun Q 56(4):46–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999305600409

Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Am J Sociol 104(5):1439–1493. https://doi.org/10.1086/210179

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT (2019) Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. Springer Nature, Switzerland

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Huang GC, Serrano KJ, Rice EL, Tsakraklides SP, Fiore SM (2018) The science of team science: a review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psychol 73(4):532–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319

Hall KL, Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S (2012) A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl Behav Med 2(4):415–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y

Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005a) Introduction to social network methods: table of contents. Riverside, CA. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/

Hanneman R, Riddle M (2005b) Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Hanneman/publication/235737492_Introduction_to_social_network_methods/links/0deec52261e1577e6c000000.pdf

Henry AD (2009). Society for human ecology the challenge of learning for sustainability: a prolegomenon to. source: human ecology review (Vol. 16). Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu/stable/pdf/24707537.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae9ffb98fef69c055ab05ead486b9ca7e

Klein C, DiazGranados D, Salas E, Le H, Burke CS, Lyons R, Goodwin GF (2009) Does team building work? Small Group Res 40(2):181–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821

Knowlton JL, Halvorsen KE, Handler RM, O’Rourke M (2014) Teaching interdisciplinary sustainability science teamwork skills to graduate students using in-person and web-based interactions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 6(12):9428–9440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129428

Kotler S, Wheal J (2008) Stealing fire: how silicon valley, the navy seals, and maverick scientists are revolutionising the way we live and work. Visual Comput (vol. 24). Retrieved from https://qyybjydyd01.storage.googleapis.com/MDA2MjQyOTY1NQ==01.pdf

Lee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):673–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359

Matthews NE, Cizauskas CA, Layton DS, Stamford L, Shapira P (2019) Collaborating constructively for sustainable biotechnology. Sci Rep 9(1):19033. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54331-7

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Patton MQ (2011) Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press

Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad Manag J 49(1):85–101. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785503

Phelps C, Heidl R, Wadhwa A, Paris H (2012) Agenda knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: a review and research. J Manag 38(4):1115–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640

Qualtrics Labs I (2005). Qualtrics Labs, Inc. Provo, Utah, USA

R Studio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, http://www.rstudio.com/

Read EK, O’Rourke M, Hong GS, Hanson PC, Winslow LA, Crowley S, Weathers KC (2016) Building the team for team science. Ecosphere 7(3):e01291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1291

Ryan MM, Yeung RS, Bass M, Kapil M, Slater S, Creedon K (2012) Developing research capacity among graduate students in an interdisciplinary environment. High Educ Res Dev 31(4):557–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.653956

Sarraj H, Hellmich M, Chao C, Aronson J, Cestone C, Wooten K, Allan, B (2017) Training future team scientists: reflections from translational course. In: Team science training for graduate students and postdocs. Clearwater, FL. Retrieved from www.scienceofteamscience.org

Sawyer RK (2003) Emergence in creativity and development. In: Sawyer RK, John-Steiner V, Moran S., Sternberg RJ, Nakamura J et al. (eds.) Creativity and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp. 12–60

Chapter Google Scholar

Senge PM (1991) The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Perform Instruct 30(5):37–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170300510

Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 20(7):595–623. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7<595::AID-SMJ47>3.0.CO;2-5

Spence JP, Buddenbaum JL, Bice PJ, Welch JL, Carroll AE (2018) Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty. BMC Med Educ 18(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1290-3

Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008). The ecology of team science. Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prevent Med https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003

Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Wooten KC, Calhoun WJ, Bhavnani S, Rose RM, Ameredes B, Brasier AR (2015) Evolution of multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs): insights for accelerating translational innovations. Clin Transl Sci 8(5):542–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12266

Wooten KC, Rose RM, Ostir GV, Calhoun WJ, Ameredes BT, Brasier AR (2014) Assessing and evaluating multidisciplinary translational teams: a mixed methods approach. Eval Health Profession 37(1):33–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278713504433

Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA (2019) Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9

Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Yin RK (2017) Case study research and applications: design and methods (6th edn.). Sage Publications

Zhang HH, Ding C, Schutte NS, Li R (2020) How team emotional intelligence connects to task performance: a network approach. Small Group Res 51(4):492–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419889660

Article CAS Google Scholar

Zhang J, Scardamalia M, Reeve R, Messina R (2009) Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. J Learn Sci 18(1):7–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to Elizabeth Scodfidio for helping with data, images and more!. The research reported in this publication was supported by Colorado State University’s Office of the Vice President for Research Catalyst for Innovative Partnerships Programme. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of the Vice President for Research. Supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535. Contents are the authors’ sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views. Funding and support were provided by grants from the National Science Foundation’s Ecology of Infectious Diseases Programme (NSF EF-0723676 and NSF EF-1413925).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Divergent Science LLC, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Hannah B. Love

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Jennifer E. Cross, Bailey Fosdick, Kevin R. Crooks & Susan VandeWoude

University of New Mexico and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Ellen R. Fisher

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HBL conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, curated the data, analysed the data, conducted the investigation, worked as the project manager, managed the software, validated the data, created visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; BF conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, curated the data, analysed the data, managed the software, validated the data, supervised all aspects of the research, created visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; JC conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, acquired funding, supervised data collection, and reviewed and edited the paper; KC and SV wrote the paper, secured funding, reviewed and edited the paper; and ERF conceptualised the study, developed the methodology, supervised all aspects of the research, acquired funding, created the visualisations, reviewed and edited the paper; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah B. Love .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

HBL, BF, JC, and ERF declare no competing interests. KC and SV are members of the exemplary team

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, supplementary data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Love, H.B., Cross, J.E., Fosdick, B. et al. Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 106 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8

Download citation

Received : 02 January 2021

Accepted : 14 April 2021

Published : 06 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Teamwork as a cornerstone of a child’s educational support in early childhood education and care in Finland

This research investigates how consulting early childhood special education teachers (ECSETs) perceived teamwork in early childhood education and care (ECEC) centers. The following research questions were set: (1) What constructs or prevents the functionality of teamwork in ECEC according to ECSETs experiences, and (2) what are the perceived consequences of teamwork in ECEC as experienced by the ECSETs? We arranged 13 group discussions in which 35 ECSETs discussed their own experiences of successful teamwork in ECEC. Using a phenomenographic approach, we identified four factors that impacted the functionality of the teams: external, unit-specific, team-specific, and employee-specific factors. ECSETs described how teamwork specifically affects the quality of ECEC and the implementation of educational support for children. Our research will help in understanding the factors and functions of teamwork as well as to develop team strengths and practises in ECEC centers.

Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0

Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284672

Åkerlind, G. S. (2018). What future for phenomenographic research? On continuity and development in the phenomenography and variation theory research tradition. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(6), 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1324899

Bøe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2017). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1059488

Bowden, J. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 11–31). RMIT University Press

Bruce, C. S. (1994). Reflections on the experience of the phenomenographic interview. Phenomenography: Philosophy and practice, 47-56.

Chuang, E., Dill, J., Morgan, J. C., & Konrad, T. R. (2012). A configurational approach to the relationship between high‐performance work practices and frontline health care worker outcomes. Health Services Research, 47(4), 1460–1481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01366.x

Cossham, A. F. (2017). An evaluation of phenomenography. Library and Information Research, 41(125), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg755

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage

Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Driskell, T. (2018). Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. American Psychologist, 73(4), 334. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000241

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157232

Early Childhood Education Act, Law 540. (2018). [Available only in Finnish] https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/smur/2018/20180540?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=varhaiskasvatuslaki

Finnish National Agency for Education [EDUFI]. (2022). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet 2022 [National core curriculum for early childhood education and care2022] (Määräykset ja ohjeet 2022:2a). Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien-perusteet

Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Springer.

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2%3C123::AID-JOB33%3E3.0.CO;2-8

Government of Finland (2021). Government proposal to change the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (HE 148/2021 vp). Eduskunta riksdagen. https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/HallituksenEsitys/Sivut/HE_148+2021.aspx

Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2016). Investigating teacher leadership in ECE centres in Finland. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5(2), 289–309.

Heikka, J., Kahila, S., Pitkäniemi, H., & Hujala, E. (2021). Teachers’ time for planning, assessment and development connected to staff well-being in early childhood education. IntechOpen. doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99103

Kalleberg, A. L., Nesheim, T., & Olsen, K. M. (2009). Is participation good or bad for workers? Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway. Acta Sociologica, 52(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699309103999

Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Roadmap on the development of early childhood education for 2017–2030. Guidelines for increasing the degree of participation in early childhood education, and for the development of the skills of daycare centre staff, personnel structure and training (Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland, 2017:30). Ministry of Education and Culture.

Köngäs, M., & Määttä, K. (2020). Pienten lasten hyvinvoinnin tukeminen päiväkodissa tunnesäätelyä ohjaamalla [Supporting the well-being of young children in day care centres by guiding emotional regulation]. Kasvatus: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen aikakauskirja, 51(5), 539–550.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and research. Upper Saddle.

Martin, J., Nuttall, J., Henderson, L., & Wood, E. (2020). Educational leaders and the project of professionalisation in early childhood education in Australia. International Journal of Educational Research, 101, Article 101559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101559

Marton, F. (2004). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28–49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589189

Melasalmi, A. (2018). Early childhood educators’professional learning through shared practices [Doctoral dissertation University of Åbo]. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B455. http://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/144981

Melasalmi, A., & Husu, J. (2019). Shared professional agency in Early Childhood Education: An in-depth study of three teams. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.002 .

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

Neitola, M., Siipola, M., & Heiskanen, N. (2021). Valtakunnallinen kysely varhaiskasvatuksen henkilöstölle tuen järjestelyistä, toteutumisesta sekä henkilöstön tukeen ja inkluusioon liittyvistä käsityksistä [Nationwide survey of support arrangements for early childhood education staff, implementation and perceptions of support and inclusion]. In N. Heiskanen, M. Neitola, M. Syrjämäki, E. Viljamaa, P. Nevala, M. Siipola & R. Viitala, Kehityksen ja oppimisen tuki sekä inklusiivisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Support for development and learning as well as inclusiveness in early childhood education and care] (Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland, 2021:30). (Vol. 13, pp. 35–112). Ministry of Education and Culture.

Niikko, A. (2003). Fenomenografia kasvatustieteellisessä tutkimuksessa [Phenomenographic in educational research]. University of Eastern Finland.

Nislin, M. A., Sajaniemi, N. K., Sims, M., Suhonen, E., Maldonado Montero, E. F., Hirvonen, A., & Hyttinen, S. (2016). Pedagogical work, stress regulation and work-related well-being among early childhood professionals in integrated special day-care groups, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 27–43, https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1087127

Paakkanen, M. A., Martela, F., & Pessi, A. B. (2021). Responding to positive emotions at work–the four steps and potential benefits of a validating response to coworkers’ positive experiences. Frontiers in Psychology. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.668160.

Pölkki, P. L., & Vornanen, R. H. (2015). Role and success of Finnish early childhood education and care in supporting child welfare clients: Perspectives from parents and professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(6), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0746-x

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative research in accounting & management, 8(3), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070

Ranta, S. (2020). Positiivinen pedagogiikka suomalaisessa varhaiskasvatuksessa ja esiopetuksessa [Positive pedagogy in the Finnish early childhood education and care centers and pre-school] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Lapland]. Acta electronica Universitatis Lapponiensis 283. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-337-217-7

Ranta, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Kahila, S., & Korkeaniemi, E. (in press). “At worst it leads to madness”—A phenomenographic approach on how early childhood education professionals experience emotions in teamwork. Nordic early childhood educational research.

Ranta, S., & Heiskanen, N. (2022). Toimiva tiimityö – jaettu vastuu lapsen tuesta [A functional teamwork - shared responsibility for child support]. Teoksessa N. Heiskanen & M. Syrjämäki (Eds.). Pienet tuetut askeleet – Varhaiskasvatuksen uudistuvat tuki ja kehittyvät käytännöt [Small supported steps - Renewed support and developing practices in early childhood education]. (pp. 137–154). PS-Kustannus.

Ranta, S., & Uusiautti, S. (2022). Functional teamwork as the foundation of positive outcomes in early childhood education and care settings. In S. Hyvärinen, T. Äärelä, & S. Uusiautti (Eds.), Positive Education and Work: Less Struggling, More Flourishing (pp. 195–221). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Richardson, J. T. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of educational research, 69(1), 53-82. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001053

Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon‐Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00046

Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Successful teamwork: A case study. In Quality Conversations: Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7–10 July 2002 (p. 640). HERDSA.

Uljens, M. (1989). Fenomenografi – forskning om uppfattningar. Studentlitteratur.

VKF (2021). Varhaiskasvatuksen koulutusten kehittämisfoorumi [VKF] [Forum for Developing Education and Training Provision and Programmes]. Programme for Developing Education and Training Provision and Programmes in Early Childhood Education and Care 2021–2030 (Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland, 2021:3). Ministry of Education and Culture.

Ylitapio-Mäntylä, O. (2016). Opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä lastentarhanopettajan työstä uuden työn kulttuurissa. Aikuiskasvatus, 36(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.33336/aik.88511

Make a Submission

More information about the publishing system, Platform and Workflow by OJS/PKP.

The Ten Conversations of Effective Teams

by Bob Dunham | Jan 31, 2014 | Bob Dunham's Posts , Embodiment , Generative Leadership , Leadership , Teams , Uncategorized | 5 comments

Hi! I’ve been following your website for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Kingwood Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the excellent job!

Thanks for bringing it. I was needing it. How can make it happen? Deep in our hearts we know it, however most teams do not want to spend the time. It seems easy but it seems easier to put it in the back burner, hope for the best and fight the battles as they come. How to overcome that tendency?

Thanks, Juan. Our tendency to avoid arises from fear, fear at the “edge” of our confidence, of our knowing, of our competence, of our comfort zone, and of our courage. Leadership, teamwork, and human interaction takes courage, the courage to go beyond our edge, to face uncertainty and to face others. It is here that we learn to make new safety, new conversations, and new “we” space. Entering the unknown, and the known that we hold as a threat or with resignation, takes practice. The practice to face and enter, to turn toward and rest into, to let the body learn where we are not in control. There we learn to keep our center, to hold a place of invitation to others, to accept the declines and resistance that may come, and to ground ourselves in our care, commitment, and possibility for the future. Overcoming the tendency to avoid is a fundamental leadership skill, practice, and challenge.

Bob, This article is excellent and very helpful for me in this particular moment. It helps me focus on the conversations I am missing. THANK YOU!!!

thank you so much. I am very interested in learning more about how to intervene in the area of moods, especially the mood of resignation. The only approach I currently know how to use is to identify it and see it for what it is and encourage people to recommit to possibility. I know this is difficult for many people to embody.

We'd love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below... Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

What are the skills you want to develop?

Schedule your 1:1 session to learn about the skills that can help you in your career.

IGL IN THE WORLD

Corpus ID: 110468570

Successful teamwork:A case study.

Pina Tarricone , Joseph Luca
Published 2002

Tables from this paper

124 Citations

A model for successful teamwork, identifying peers to form an effective team in a project-based course innovative practice, power and culture of teamwork, students’ perception on the effectiveness of teamwork based activities in enhancing the learning process, building interdisciplinary teams through student design competitions: a case study, teamwork effectiveness in student's final year project, authentic design and administration of group-based assessments to improve the job-readiness of project management graduates, developing teamwork skills in undergraduate science students: the academic perspective and practice, student perceptions of teamwork within assessment tasks in undergraduate science degrees, conditioning factors and opportunities for teamwork. a case study from a catalan university, 20 references, does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork, on becoming a team player.

Highly Influential

Team or group? Managers’ perceptions of the differences

Managing effectively through teams.

22 Excerpts

High-performance teams: Lessons from the pygmies

Team performance management, developing e-learning environments that support knowledge construction in higher education, the effect of personality type on team performance, the wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century, cooperative learning: making “groupwork” work, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Published in 2002

Pina Tarricone Joseph Luca

Using a Teamwork Quality Instrument to Improve Agile Teams’ Effectiveness: Practical Use Cases

Conference paper
First Online: 31 January 2023
Cite this conference paper

Arthur Freire 9 ,
Manuel Neto 9 ,
Mirko Perkusich 9 ,
Alexandre Costa 9 ,
Kyller Gorgônio 9 ,
Hyggo Almeida 9 &
Angelo Perkusich 9

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1642))

Included in the following conference series:

Brazilian Workshop on Agile Methods

383 Accesses

Agile Software Development (ASD) has become the most chosen development method. The core fundamentals of ASD are based on Teamwork factors and how valuable it considers individuals and their interactions over processes and tools. Researchers have shown the positive impact of teamwork quality in ASD and the importance of assessing it to increase the chances of succeeding projects in this context. Based on this, some researchers have proposed instruments that can assess ASD teamwork quality. One of these instruments is a bayesian network-based model (TWQ-BN), with its practical utility assessed in a case study presented in previous work. However, there is a lack of practical use cases documented using TWQ-BN to identify process improvement opportunities. This paper addresses this gap by presenting two industry-based use cases to help potential users understand how to use TWQ-BN to define action items to improve the team’s effectiveness. This paper provides better guidance toward adopting TWQ-BN and shows how it can be used as a tool on iteration retrospectives to diagnose the teamwork quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

https://agenarisk.com .

Anderson, R.D., Vastag, G.: Causal modeling alternatives in operations research: overview and application. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (1), 92–109 (2004)

Article MATH Google Scholar

Batista, A.C.D., de Souza, R.M., da Silva, F.Q.B., de Almeida Melo, L., Marsicano, G.: Teamwork quality and team success in software development: a non-exact replication study. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), ESEM 2020. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020)

Google Scholar

Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for agile software development (2001). http://www.agilemanifesto.org/

Chow, T., Cao, D.B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J. Syst. Softw. 81 (6), 961–971 (2008)

Article Google Scholar

Fenton, N., Neil, M., Caballero, J.G.: Using ranked nodes to model qualitative judgments in Bayesian networks. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 19 (10), 1420–1432 (2007)

Fenton, N., Neil, M., Marsh, W., Hearty, P., Radliński, Ł, Krause, P.: On the effectiveness of early life cycle defect prediction with Bayesian nets. Empirical Softw. Eng. 13 (5), 499–537 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9072-x

Figalist, I., Elsner, C., Bosch, J., Olsson, H.H.: Breaking the vicious circle: why AI for software analytics and business intelligence does not take off in practice. In: 2020 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 5–12. IEEE (2020)

Fontana, R.M., Fontana, I.M., da Rosa Garbuio, P.A., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Processes versus people: how should agile software development maturity be defined? J. Syst. Softw. 97 , 140–155 (2014)

Freire, A., Perkusich, M., Saraiva, R., Almeida, H., Perkusich, A.: A Bayesian networks-based approach to assess and improve the teamwork quality of agile teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 100 , 119–132 (2018)

Gren, L., Goldman, A., Jacobsson, C.: Agile ways of working: a team maturity perspective. J. Softw. Evol. Process 32 (6), e2244 (2020)

Gren, L., Lenberg, P.: Agility is responsiveness to change: an essential definition. In: Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 348–353. Association for Computing Machinery (2020)

Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J.: The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Softw. 35 (5), 58–63 (2018)

Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G.: Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 12 (4), 435–449 (2001)

Kraut, R.E., Streeter, L.A.: Coordination in software development. Commun. ACM 38 (3), 69–81 (1995)

Lindsay, R.M., Ehrenberg, A.S.C.: The design of replicated studies. Am. Stat. 47 (3), 217–228 (1993)

Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D.I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G.R., Dybå, T.: Teamwork quality and project success in software development: a survey of agile development teams. J. Syst. Softw. 122 , 274–286 (2016)

Masood, Z., Hoda, R., Blincoe, K.: Real world scrum a grounded theory of variations in practice. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 48 (5), 1579–1591 (2022)

de Mendonça, W.L.M., et al.: From dusk till dawn: reflections on the impact of COVID-19 on the development practices of a R &D project. In: Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES 2020, pp. 596–605. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3422392.3422446

Miller, C., Rodeghero, P., Storey, M.A., Ford, D., Zimmermann, T.: “How was your weekend?” Software development teams working from home during COVID-19. In: 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 624–636 (2021)

Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: a case study of a scrum project. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52 (5), 480–491 (2010)

Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Røyrvik, E.A.: Putting agile teamwork to the test – an preliminary instrument for empirically assessing and improving agile software development. In: Abrahamsson, P., Marchesi, M., Maurer, F. (eds.) XP 2009. LNBIP, vol. 31, pp. 114–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01853-4_14

Chapter Google Scholar

Ringstad, M.A., Dingsøyr, T., Brede Moe, N.: Agile process improvement: diagnosis and planning to improve teamwork. In: O’Connor, R.V., Pries-Heje, J., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2011. CCIS, vol. 172, pp. 167–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22206-1_15

Williams, L., Rubin, K., Cohn, M.: Driving process improvement via comparative agility assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Agile Conference, AGILE 2010, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3–10. IEEE Computer Society (2010)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Intelligent Software Engineering (ISE) Group @ VIRTUS, Federal University of Campina Grande, Campina Grande, Brazil

Arthur Freire, Manuel Neto, Mirko Perkusich, Alexandre Costa, Kyller Gorgônio, Hyggo Almeida & Angelo Perkusich

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Arthur Freire or Mirko Perkusich .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

Carla Rocha

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

Celio Santana Júnior

Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, Brazil

Fernando De Sá

Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São José dos Campos, Brazil

Tiago Silva da Silva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Freire, A. et al. (2023). Using a Teamwork Quality Instrument to Improve Agile Teams’ Effectiveness: Practical Use Cases. In: Rocha, C., Santana Júnior, C., De Sá, F., Silva da Silva, T. (eds) Agile Methods. WBMA 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1642. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25648-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25648-6_1

Published : 31 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25647-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25648-6

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Skip to main content
Skip to search
Skip to footer

Products and Services

Cisco Catalyst, Cisco Meraki, and Cisco Nexus switches with Cisco Catalyst Center controller

Network switches

Switch on the power of your network.

Your network needs to evolve to meet new demands. So do your switches.

Ace the demands of secure, sustainable hybrid work

Provide top-notch experiences. Be a magnet for talent and innovation. Sharpen your edge over the competition. Let our switches—new and existing—help you do it all.

Person sitting at a laptop in an office setting

Build a network that gives you peace of mind.

Switches for every network

Cisco catalyst 9400 series switches.

Modular switches for enterprise-class midsize and large campus access networks

Cisco Catalyst 9300 Series Switches

Fixed stackable switches for enterprise-class lean-branch and campus access networks that need extra scale and security

Cisco Catalyst 9200 Series Switches

Fixed stackable switches for enterprise-class access deployments for small branches and midsize campuses

Cisco Meraki MS390 Series switches

Cloud-managed switching for the aggregation layer, simplifying management and reducing complexity

Core and distribution

Cisco catalyst 9600 series switches.

Modular switches for enterprise-class midsize and large campus-core networks

Cisco Catalyst 9500 Series Switches

Fixed switches for enterprise-class midsize and large campus-core networks

Modular switches for enterprise-class midsize and large campus distribution networks

Cisco Meraki MS400 Series switches

Data center and cloud, cisco nexus 9000 series switches.

Cloud-scale data center switches that are built for cloud connectivity and flexible design

Cisco Nexus 3550 Series

Ultra-low-latency platforms, switches, and components built for field-programmable gate array (FPGA) programming

Cisco Nexus 3000 Series Switches

Low-latency, high-density switches for general deployments and high-performance computing

Cisco MDS 9000 Series solutions

Storage area networking solutions built for optimized cloud, application, and big-data performance

Industrial Ethernet

Cisco catalyst ie9300 rugged series switches.

High-performance rack-mount switches for dense fiber connectivity and stringent networking needs

Cisco Industrial Ethernet 5000 Series Switches

Delivering resilient and scalable aggregation for industrial environments

Cisco embedded series

Ultracompact form factor designed for integrating into custom-built mission-critical devices

Cisco Catalyst IE3x00 Rugged Series Switches

All GE, modular, DIN-rail-mounted, with PoE and edge compute for scalable, secure industrial networking

Small business and LAN compact

Cisco catalyst 9200cx compact switches.

Optimized for smart buildings and fiber-to-the-office (FTTO) networks while offering enterprise-class security, management, and reliability

Cisco Meraki MS120 Series

Low power consumption, quiet acoustic design, and shallow rack depth options, enabling deployment flexibility in wiring closets as well as in offices and classrooms

Cisco Catalyst 1300 Series Managed Switches

Easy-to-manage, enterprise-grade switches that provide excellent performance and advanced security needed for small and medium-sized businesses at an affordable price

Cisco Catalyst 1200 Series Smart Switches

Easy-to-manage, budget-friendly, enterprise-grade switches that provide the performance and security needed for the small and medium business network

Cisco Meraki MS130 Series

Versatile, cost-effective cloud-managed mGig switch designed to meet the diverse connectivity and security needs of branch and campus deployments.

Cisco Business 110 Series Switches

Affordable entry-level unmanaged switches with plug-and-play capability and Gigabit Ethernet for a seamless digital transformation.

Network management

Cisco catalyst center.

Get better performance and spend less time managing your network.

Cisco Meraki dashboard

Cloud monitoring for Catalyst switching is now available on the Meraki cloud management network platform.

Explore better-together switching solutions

Enhance network security. Do it all with our broad range of switching solutions.

Explore switching solutions

Cisco software-defined access.

Manage and secure IoT-device and user network access through zero-trust workplace capabilities.

Cisco smart building solutions

Put the "smart" in your buildings to help enhance health, safety, and efficiencies.

Cisco wireless and mobility solutions

Join the Wi-Fi movement for wireless experience in hybrid work environments.

Cisco ThousandEyes solutions

Instantly identify what is affecting user experiences across any domain—even those domains that you don't own or control.

Get the guidance that you need

Cisco Success Tracks

Accelerate IT value

Optimize the value of your switching software for faster results, with digital insights and services expertise.

Lifecycle Services

Move your business forward

Build modern IT environments and accelerate agility with analytics-driven advisory services.

Find your switch

Compare and contrast Cisco switches of all types and sizes. Quickly find the switch to meet your needs

IMAGES

Case study on effective teamwork
Teamwork Case Study
10 Tips for Successful Teamwork
[PDF] Successful teamwork:A case study.
Successful Teamwork: A Case Study
(PDF) Successful teamwork: A case study

VIDEO

CASE STUDY (QUALITY CONTROL)
Teamwork key to sending child killer to life in prison
Bruno Meets Rollins Before Benson Adds Her to a New Case
Relationships for Leadership Success & High Performance Teams
How to Improve Teamwork in the Workplace
Case Study

COMMENTS

Successful teamwork: A case study
A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context. Attributes gleaned from the literature for successful teamwork was used to compare the two diverse teams. Keywords: Teamwork, higher education ...
(PDF) Successful teamwork: A case study
A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context ...
[PDF] Successful teamwork:A case study.
This study focused on developing teamwork skills, and conducted a wide literature review to develop a model of team evolution for successful teamwork, which revealed that the established model was reasonably accurate in determining successful teams i.e. teams that demonstrated reasonable knowledge and abilities in teaming skills, developed team rules and processes, and focused on promoting ...
"Successful teamwork: A case study" by Pina Tarricone
A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context. Attributes gleaned from the literature for successful teamwork was used to compare the two diverse teams. Pina Tarricone and Joseph Luca.
Successful teamwork: A case study
A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context. Attributes gleaned from the literature for successful teamwork was used to compare the two diverse teams. Keywords: Teamwork, higher education ...
Successful teamwork: A case study ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦9
This study reviews the literature with a view of identifying a framework that educators can use to help promote effective teamwork in their classes. A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context.
Successful teamwork:A case study.
This study reviews the literature with a view of identifying a framework that educators can use to help promote effective teamwork in their classes. A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context ...
Successful teamwork: A case study
This study reviews the literature with a view of identifying a framework that educators can use to help promote effective teamwork in their classes. A case study is used to investigate two teams of final year multimedia students completing a project-based unit, in which teamwork was an essential ingredient and immersed in an authentic context.
Successful teamwork A case study
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of: Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002) Successful teamwork: A case study, in Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July 2002: pp 640-646. Available here This Conference Proceeding is posted at Research Online. ro.ecu.edu/ecuworks/)
How to Lead Great Conversations with Your Team
HBR On Leadership curates the best case studies and conversations with the world's top business and management experts, to help you unlock the best in those around you. New episodes every week.
Teamwork and Communication: A 3-Year Case Study of Change
Abstract. This 3-year research project assessed the effectiveness of a teambuilding intervention among a group of department leaders who supervised a fire management unit working in the forests of the western United States. The intervention began with a 3-day retreat that covered three basic areas: communication skills, consensus building, and ...
The Secrets of Great Teamwork
The Secrets of Great Teamwork. Collaboration has become more complex, but success still depends on the fundamentals. by. Martine Haas. and. Mark Mortensen. From the Magazine (June 2016) RW13 (Fair ...
The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Improving Team-working: The
Successful teamwork: A case study. Quality Conversations - Conference Proceedings (pp 640-646). Perth: 25th Annual International Conference Higher Education Research and Development Society Association (HERDSA). ... (2002). Successful teamwork: A case study. Quality Conversations - Conference Proceedings (pp 640-646). Perth: 25th Annual ...
5 Conversations That Foster Teamwork in the Workplace
The Five Conversations That Drive Teamwork. Role and Relationship Conversation: The Foundation for Performance and Development. Role and Relationship conversations allow managers to define what ...
Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an ...
This study addresses the call of numerous studies to use mixed-methods and social network analysis to investigate scientific team formation and success. This longitudinal case-based study ...
Case-Study. Dialogical Leadership and Teamwork
In preparing the conversations, the following main themes were derived. First: reaching a reciprocal process of co-creation, where each member of the team is invited and stimulated to voice his vision with as common goal to reach a shared vision for the entire team of Board and SVP's.In this process, members spoke about the importance of being stimulated to truly express their thoughts and ...
Teamwork as a cornerstone of a child's educational support in early
Successful teamwork: A case study. In Quality Conversations: Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July 2002 (p. 640). HERDSA.
The Ten Conversations of Effective Teams
Leadership, teamwork, and human interaction takes courage, the courage to go beyond our edge, to face uncertainty and to face others. It is here that we learn to make new safety, new conversations, and new "we" space. Entering the unknown, and the known that we hold as a threat or with resignation, takes practice.
Table 1 from Successful teamwork:A case study.
This study focused on developing teamwork skills, and conducted a wide literature review to develop a model of team evolution for successful teamwork, which revealed that the established model was reasonably accurate in determining successful teams i.e. teams that demonstrated reasonable knowledge and abilities in teaming skills, developed team rules and processes, and focused on promoting ...
Key attributes for successful teamwork
A summary of the results is discussed below with reference to key attributes needed for successful teamwork as outlined in Table 1. • participants understand their purpose and share their goals ...
(PDF) Conditioning factors and opportunities for teamwork. A case study
Resumen The aim of this article is to analyse the conditioning factors and opportunities that influence teamwork among teachers at a Catalan university. The creation of new academic identities ...
Using a Teamwork Quality Instrument to Improve Agile Teams ...
Studies have shown the positive impact of teamwork quality (TWQ) [13, 14], and its relevance for success in ASD [4, 8, 20, 22, 23]. Batista et al. [ 2 ] discussed that the effective combination of individual parts, often carried out by software development teams, requires interactions among team members and the coordination of interdependent ...
Network Switches
Explore switching solutions. Manage and secure IoT-device and user network access through zero-trust workplace capabilities. Put the "smart" in your buildings to help enhance health, safety, and efficiencies. Join the Wi-Fi movement for wireless experience in hybrid work environments.

Search form

You are here

Research and Development in Higher Education Vol. 25: Quality Conversations

Successful teamwork: A case study ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦9

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

The Library

Export search results

Successful teamwork: A case study

Similar works

Having an issue?

The Secrets of Great Teamwork

Idea in Brief

The Analysis

The Solution

Partner Center

Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study

Similar content being viewed by others

Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study

Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration

A framework for developing team science expertise using a reflective-reflexive design method (R2DM)

Case study selection

Social network survey

Historical social network data

Retrospective team survey

Participant observations

An exemplary team

Scientific productivity network

Mentoring is integral in the collaborative network

Advice is integral in the collaborative network

Interpersonal relationships as driver for scientific productivity

Interactive and contributory expertise are intertwined

Training scientists to be experts

Interpersonal relationships increase scientific productivity

Fulfilling the land grant mission

Future research

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Teamwork as a cornerstone of a child’s educational support in early childhood education and care in Finland

Make a Submission

The Ten Conversations of Effective Teams

We'd love to hear your thoughts! Please comment below... Cancel reply

What are the skills you want to develop?

IGL IN THE WORLD

Successful teamwork:A case study.

Tables from this paper

124 Citations

Team or group? Managers’ perceptions of the differences

High-performance teams: Lessons from the pygmies

Using a Teamwork Quality Instrument to Improve Agile Teams’ Effectiveness: Practical Use Cases

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding authors

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Download citation

Share this paper

Products and Services

Network switches

Ace the demands of secure, sustainable hybrid work

Build a network that gives you peace of mind.

Switches for every network

Cisco Catalyst 9300 Series Switches

Cisco Catalyst 9200 Series Switches

Cisco Meraki MS390 Series switches

Core and distribution

Cisco Catalyst 9500 Series Switches

Cisco Meraki MS400 Series switches

Get the guidance that you need