Multiteam Systems Research Articles

Individuals’ Capacities to Apply Transferred Knowledge in AEC Project Teams

AbstractArchitectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) project teams are multiteam systems that temporarily gather individuals with diverse expertise to develop a common project. Individuals in...

Multiteam Systems: An Integrated Review and Comparison of Different Forms

In this review, we examine the burgeoning body of research on multiteam systems (MTSs) since the introduction of the concept in 2001. MTSs refer to networks of interdependent teams that coordinate at some level to achieve proximal and distal goals. We summarize MTS findings around three core processes and states: within- and between-team coordination processes/structures, leadership structures/processes, and cognitive and affective/motivation emergent states. Furthermore, we explore how these processes and states vary according to MTS boundary status (internal or external), component team distance (geographic, functional, cultural, and discipline), and superordinate goal type (intellectual or physical). We identify several process and state similarities across levels of these attributes, as well as highlight some important differences. We conclude with a set of propositions and future directions prompted by our review, which can serve as a guide for future MTS research.

Using live disaster exercises to study large multiteam systems in extreme environments: Methodological and measurement fit

Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique subgoals. In large MTSs operating in extreme environments, coordination difficulties have repeatedly been found, which compromise response effectiveness. Research is needed that examines MTSs in situ within extreme environments to develop temporal theories of inter-team processes and understanding of how coordination may be improved within these challenging contexts. Live disaster exercises replicate the complexities of extreme environments, providing a valuable avenue for observing inter-team processes in situ. This article seeks to contribute to MTS research by highlighting (i) a mixed-method framework for collecting data during live disaster exercises that uses both inductive and deductive approaches to promote methodological and measurement fit; (ii) ways in which data can be collected and combined to meet the appropriate standards of their methodological class; and (iii) a case example of a National exercise.

Identity Asymmetries: An Experimental Investigation of Social Identity and Information Exchange in Multiteam Systems

Many complex organizational tasks are performed by networks of teams, or “multiteam systems.” A critical challenge in multiteam systems is how to promote information exchange across teams. In three studies, we investigate how identity “asymmetries”—differences between teams in terms of whether the team or overarching system constitutes their primary focus of identification—affect interteam information sharing and performance. In Study 1, we manipulate teams’ foci of identification (team vs. system focused) in a sample of 84 five-member teams working in one of 21 four-team multiteam systems performing a computer strategy simulation. We find that, while system-focused teams shared information equally with all teams, team-focused teams shared less information with system-focused teams than they did with other team-focused teams. Interteam information sharing positively predicted interteam performance. In Study 2, we test the assumptions underlying our theory in a vignette experiment, demonstrating that team-focused individuals adopt instrumental motives toward interteam interaction. Finally, in Study 3, we investigate the implications of system composition in terms of team identity foci by means of a simulation study based on the empirical results of Study 1. The results of the simulation yield novel propositions about the nonlinear effects of social identity in multiteam systems.

Towards More Inclusive Theory and Organizing: Advancements in Multi- Team Systems Research

This symposium brings together junior and senior scholars, as well as doctoral students to share and build on their research on multi-team systems (MTSs). As organizations face increasingly complex...

Social Identification in Multiteam Systems: The Role of Depletion and Task Complexity

Organizations construct multiteam systems to address complex challenges that require the joint efforts of multiple teams. Taking an uncertainty perspective and integrating social identity theory wi...

Learning From the Past to Advance the Future: The Adaptation and Resilience of NASA's Spaceflight Multiteam Systems Across Four Eras of Spaceflight.

Many important “grand” challenges—such as sending a team of humans on a voyage to Mars—present superordinate goals that require coordinated efforts across “multiteam systems” comprised of multiple uniquely specialized and interdependent component teams. Given their flexibility and resource capacity, multiteam system structures have great potential to perform adaptively in dynamic contexts. However, these systems may fail to achieve their superordinate goals if constituent members or teams do not adapt their collaboration processes to meet the needs of the changing environment. In this case study of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s Spaceflight Multiteam Systems (SFMTSs), we aim to support the next era of human spaceflight by considering how the history of manned spaceflight might impact a SFMTS’s ability to respond adaptively to future challenges. We leverage archival documents, including Oral History interviews with NASA personnel, in order to uncover the key attributes and structural features of NASA’s SFMTSs as well as the major goals, critical events, and challenges they have faced over 60 years of operation. The documents reveal three distinct “eras” of spaceflight: (1) Early Exploration, (2) Experimentation, and (3) Habitation, each of which reflected distinct goals, critical events, and challenges. Moreover, we find that within each era, SFMTSs addressed new challenges adaptively by modifying their: (1) technical capabilities; (2) internal collaborative relationships; and/or (3) external partnerships. However, the systems were sometimes slow to implement needed adaptations, and changes were often spurred by initial performance failures. Implications for supporting future SFMTS performance and future directions for MTS theory and research are discussed.

An integration team’s diagnosing of context, spanning boundaries and creating psychological safety within a multiteam system

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore how integration teams can build trusting relationships in component teams to enhance their leadership capability within multiteam systems to achieve common superordinate goals. The study investigates how an integration team diagnoses contextual dynamics to enhance understanding of goals in component teams and spans boundaries to create trusting relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed model was tested by surveying 396 respondents nested within component teams working within five South African manufacturing companies. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyse the data.FindingsThe study reveals that by diagnosing the contextual dynamics within a multiteam system and through boundary spanning, an integration team builds trusting relationships, which will, ultimately, enable teams to achieve common superordinate goals.Practical implicationsThis study offers organisations insights into how multiple component teams of different functional disciplines can work effectively towards achieving an overall or common superordinate goal. It offers insights on how to mitigate misalignment challenges by implementing an integration team within the multiteam system context.Originality/valueResearch participants were employees within a manufacturing context, which sets this study apart from many previous ones conducted in a simulated environment within a military context. The study investigates building trusting relationships among multiple component teams within a multiteam system through the implementation of an integration team, which has not been specifically addressed in previous studies.

Evaluating the use of multiteam systems to manage the complexity of inpatient falls in rural hospitals.

To evaluate the implementation and outcomes of evidence-based fall-risk-reduction processes when those processes are implemented using a multiteam system (MTS) structure. Fall-risk-reduction process and outcome measures from 16 small rural hospitals participating in a research demonstration and dissemination study from August 2012 to July 2014. Previously, these hospitals lacked a fall-event reporting system to drive improvement. A one-group pretest-posttest embedded in a participatory research framework. We required hospitals to implement MTSs, which we supported by conducting education, developing an online toolkit, and establishing a fall-event reporting system. Hospitals used gap analyses to assess the presence of fall-risk-reduction processes at study beginning and their frequency and effectiveness at study end; they reported fall-event data throughout the study. The extent to which hospitals implemented 21 processes to coordinate the fall-risk-reduction program and trained staff specifically about the program predicted unassisted and injurious fall rates during the end-of-study period (January 2014-July 2014). Bedside fall-risk-reduction processes were not significant predictors of these outcomes. Multiteam systems that effectively coordinate fall-risk-reduction processes may improve the capacity of hospitals to manage the complex patient, environmental, and system factors that result in falls.

Multiteam systems in an agile environment: a realist systematic review

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight a collaborative effort between academia (University of North Texas, Team Sciences) and practice (Toyota Connected (TC)). This study concentrated on current problems that had been experienced by TC: How to structure and manage multiteam systems (MTSs)? Design/methodology/approach This research study utilized a realist systematic review to address an existing problem by working collaboratively with TC and academia. This collaboration involved problem identification, the development of research questions and a full systematic review guided by the research questions. Findings This realist systematic review merged the literature with current practices at TC in an effort to gather evidence to support the best method of structuring and managing MTSs. The findings include a leadership structure that incorporates both shared leadership (bottom-up) and existing hierarchical structures (top-down). Practical implications The MTS models presented in this study provide new models for organizations/manufacturers/industries to use as a guide when structuring their MTSs. Originality/value This study provides an example of a collaborative research effort between practice and academia using a realist systematic review. The paper also provides some multiteam system models that could be implemented and tested in different organizations. Also, new responsibilities and roles for scrum and MTSs are presented as a new method of achieving Agile.

The role of information sharing on decision delay during multiteam disaster response

Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more interconnected teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique sub-goals. To date, research has predominantly focused on how decisions are made and has viewed these cognitive processes as occurring within individuals. However, for MTSs operating in extreme environments such as disasters, it is often not a question of how decisions are made, but what is causing delays and failures to make decisions. To understand the causes of decision delay within these complex networks, it is important to focus on decision processes at the multiteam level. Using naturalistic observational and interview data collected during a multi-site, multiteam emergency response to a large-scale disaster exercise, this study examines both information sharing (what was shared, with whom, how long this took), and decision processes across teams (situational awareness—SA, plan formulation, and plan execution). Findings demonstrate that interdependencies in cognitive processes exist across individuals where goals overlap. Decision delay is not only caused by failure to develop SA within a team preventing their ability to formulate and execute plans but also by the inability of other teams to execute their plans. The implications of these findings for developing targeted interventions are discussed.

Learning in multi-team systems

Learning in multi-team systems

Accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems: Role of leadership skills and multicultural teams

Teams are increasingly engaged in networked interaction across teams and organizational boundaries in order to achieve complex, lower order and higher order goals. Considering the fact that the goals accomplishment is the basic necessity of organizations, this study aims at exploring the accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems (MTSs). There exists an absence of theoretical models focused on systems composed of such teams. This study therefore, proposes a predictive model to improve understanding in this regard. It has been suggested that the higher order goals are more effective to accomplish under sequential and reciprocal functional process inter dependencies. Conversely, the lower order goals are more effective to accomplish under intensive functional process inter dependency. However, this goal achievement requires facilitators to make it more effective because of which moderators such as leadership skills and multicultural teams are proposed within the suggested framework.

Why wasn't sport included? Comment on the special issue on the science of teamwork (2018).

The special issue of the American Psychologist (May-June 2018) is devoted to the science of teamwork, with 20 articles addressing the history and foundation of teamwork research and highlighting the importance of teamwork in aviation, military, business, space exploration, academic, and health care settings. Articles that address factors influencing team performance and evaluation of interventions with teams are also included. The editors of the special issue direct attention to key areas in teamwork research that would benefit from further inquiry. That is, a call is made for research that focuses on teamwork measurement and assessment tools, explores multi-team systems, and bridges the gap between theory and practice. The special issue is a gem, likely to advance teamwork research in the years to come. Missing, however, is discussion of research related to sport teams and the sport psychology literature, although a sport team is featured on the cover of the science of teamwork special issue. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems: Role of leadership skills and multicultural teams

Teams are increasingly engaged in networked interaction across teams and organizational boundaries in order to achieve complex, lower order and higher order goals. Considering the fact that the goals accomplishment is the basic necessity of organizations, this study aims at exploring the accomplishment of goal levels in multi team systems (MTSs). There exists an absence of theoretical models focused on systems composed of such teams. This study therefore, proposes a predictive model to improve understanding in this regard. It has been suggested that the higher order goals are more effective to accomplish under sequential and reciprocal functional process inter dependencies. Conversely, the lower order goals are more effective to accomplish under intensive functional process inter dependency. However, this goal achievement requires facilitators to make it more effective because of which moderators such as leadership skills and multicultural teams are proposed within the suggested framework.

How multiteam systems learn

PurposeExtending a model of how teams learn, this paper aims to present a model of multiteam system (MTS) learning, comparing similarities and differences between how MTSs learn and how component teams learn. The paper describes the value of adaptive, generative and transformative learning for increasing MTS development over time.Design/methodology/approachThe model proposes that environmental demands trigger adaptive, generative and transformative MTS learning, which is further increased by the MTS’s readiness to learn. Learning can happen during performance episodes and during hiatus periods between performance episodes.FindingsLearning triggers coupled with readiness to learn and the cycle and phase of MTS process influence the learning process (adaptive, generative or transformative), which in turn influences the learning outcomes.Research/limitations implicationsThe study offers a number of research propositions with the idea that the model and propositions will stimulate research in this area.Practical implicationsThis model allows MTS and component team leaders and facilitators to recognize that MTS learning is a process that is needed to help component teams work together and help the MTS as a whole perform in current and future situations, thereby improving MTS effectiveness.Originality/valueLittle attention has been given to the notion that MTSs learn and develop. This manuscript is the first to emphasize that MTSs learn and identify processes that can improve learning. Adaptive, generative and transformative processes describe how MTSs learn and produce changes in MTS structure and actions.

Teams aren’t enough: Considering multiteam systems for better cancer care.

231 Background: Cancer is a complex disease that manifests differently. Quality care relies on the coordinated integration of many providers with varied background, experience, and expertise. Because care coordination spans across multiple processes (e.g., detection, diagnosis, and treatment), levels (e.g., individuals and teams), provider types (e.g., nurse and physician), specialties (e.g., surgery, radiology, and oncology), we argue that a team-based approach is necessary but solely insufficient. The current system provides care that is fragmented and evidence suggests such fragmentation is associated with missed opportunities, repetitive testing and increased costs. To mitigate fragmentation, effective cancer care requires the synthesis of multiple teams. A single team is characterized by two or more individuals working interdependently towards a shared goal. However, due to the complexity of cancer care, effective care coordination warrants multiple teams with collective, shared goals as well as potentially different, proximal goals. Effective multiteam systems (MTSs) need guidance, particularly for cancer care where this thinking is still relatively novel. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to contribute a theoretically grounded foundation and initial guiding principles that can inform efforts to mitigate the fragmentation in cancer care by providing insights on how to facilitate optimal MTSs. Methods: We culled the MTS literature to distill principles that are applicable for cancer care. Results: We offer seven recommendations that practitioners and healthcare delivery researchers can use to strengthen the integrated, coordinative efforts of cancer care: (1) Define the specific cancer care MTS & potential future component teams; (2) Determine critical interdependencies among the component teams; (3) Identify optimal boundary spanner(s); (4) Educate the boundary spanner on the role and responsibilities; (5) Explicate the shared and competing goals; (6) Establish a salient social identity; and (7) Incorporate pre-briefs and debriefs with ‘unlikely’ team members. Conclusions: We posit that a MTS approach is more accurate and more fruitful for examining and improving the delivery of cancer care across the cancer continuum.

Modeling Team Cognition in Emergency Response via Naturalistic Observation of Team Interactions

Emergency responders work collectively as an ad hoc team to save lives and infrastructures at risk, despite their varying experience, knowledge, cultural backgrounds, and difficult working conditions with high-levels of uncertainty and timepressure. Cognition, in particular, has gained attention as a key construct to consider in collective response efforts in emergency management. Team cognition, however, has not been fully appreciated or adequately addressed in the field of emergency response (Bigley & Roberts, 2001). The interactionist perspective (or interactive team cognition) effectively captures team cognition in heterogeneous and dynamic teams prevalent in the real-world (Cooke & Gorman, 2009; Cooke, Gorman, Myers, & Duran, 2013). Although researchers in the emergency response discipline appreciate the value of viewing team cognition as interaction (Comfort, 2007; Bergeron & Cooren, 2012; Wolbers & Boersma, 2013), an associated empirical or interventional attempt using this perspective remains scarce. Tracing the scarcity of literature back to lack of context-specific theorizing efforts (Moon, Peres, & Sasangohar, 2017), an observation-based, theory-building approach is utilized here to address this gap. The naturalistic observational study presented here is an initial effort to explore team cognition for an incident management team (IMT) as an interactive system. An IMT is an ad hoc team of command-level responders. Interestingly, an IMT is a team of functional sub-teams or sections (i.e., Command, Planning, Operations, Logistics, and Finance/ Administration). Within each sub-team there is also a team of functional units. This naturalistic observational study was conducted at a high-fidelity simulator replicating a generic IMT facility, i.e., the emergency operations training center (EOTC), College Station, TX. Interactions were observed and coded in terms of who initiated the interaction and with whom, which technology was being used, and what was communicated and for what purpose. The purpose of this study is to develop a theoretical interactionist model of team cognition in emergency response, to inform future interventional attempts to improve team decision-making. To do so, this study views a Plans team as a cognitive system capable of managing information through interdependent, nonlinear, and dynamic interactive behaviors for perceiving (P), diagnosing (D), and adapting (A) to the changes in the status of critical elements (Adapted from Moon et al., 2017). The proposed P·D·A model posits the following three premises: (1) a Plans team is a cognitive system where its team cognition is interactions of team members to complete a cognitive task; (2) team cognition for each of the three sub-teams of a Plans team is tied to the context-specific cognitive tasks of perceiving (P), diagnosing (D), and adapting (A) to the changes in the status of critical elements; and (3) team cognition for a Plans team is manifested as nonlinear, interdependent, and dynamic interactions within and among P, D, and A of the three sub-teams of the Plans team. Preliminary results from a content analysis of transcribed and coded interactions suggest that an Info/Intel unit, a Situation unit, and a Section Chief unit can be hypothesized to be critical contributors of team cognition for a Plans team in terms of P, D, and A, respectively. These hypotheses can be represented with network centrality measures as follows: Hypothesis 1. An Info/Intel unit has high in-degree and out-degree centrality with non-Plans teams. Hypothesis 2. A Situation unit has high betweenness centrality within a Plans team. Hypothesis 3. A Section Chief unit has high in-degree and out-degree centrality within a Plans team, and high betweenness centrality between the Plans team and non-Plans teams. The proposed P·D·A model illustrates the benefits of viewing team cognition as interaction within and among a team of teams, for context-specific tasks of P, D, and A. Most importantly, the model effectively captures the nonlinear, interdependent, and dynamic nature of team cognition as interaction in a multiteam system, or MTS (Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005; Bienefeld & Grote, 2014), embedded in complex socio-technical systems, STS (Vicente, 2002). As the information processing model views an individual as a cognitive system or a human information processing system (Wickens, 1992), the P·D·A model views a team as a cognitive system capable of managing information. The interactionist perspective on team cognition helps the P·D·A model to realize its potential to extend an individual cognition model to a team level. The interactionist perspective is “compatible with the view of human-machine system as a unitary system” (Cooke & Gorman, 2009, p. 28). In addition to the theoretical and practical implications, this study has methodological implications. Measuring interactive team cognition with network-based metrics (currently in progress) will open a new chapter. The need of incorporating a network perspective into team cognition in emergency response is in line with the literature (Wolbers & Boersma, 2013; Steigenberger, 2016). As a future work, the P·D·A model will be further developed with network and content analysis and validated through interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) involved in Hurricane Harvey.

Intergroup behavior in military multiteam systems

The use of multiteam systems is increasing rapidly, as the diversity in skills and knowledge they supply assists organizations in responding more effectively to volatile environments. Multiteam systems consist of teams that depend on each other to achieve a common overarching goal, while simultaneously pursuing different proximal goals. However, multiteam systems often struggle to achieve the expected level of synergy. Multiteam system scholars have speculated that this may be owing to the presence of multiple teams within multiteam systems. Negative effects of salient group identities are well-documented, and yet there is no published empirical evidence of these same effects in multiteam systems yet. In this article, we examine the extent to which salient component team identities lead to multiteam system intergroup behavior. Given the nascent state of multiteam system research, we used Eisenhardt’s method to generate theory from case studies. Three military multiteam systems were studied, with data collected before and during a deployment to Afghanistan. The study’s findings contribute to our understanding of multiteam systems in several ways. First, the study provides empirical evidence that multiteam systems are vulnerable to intergroup behavior. Second, it shows how boundary spoilers, a well-designed team-building period and effective multiteam system leadership influence if and how multiteam system intergroup behavior develops. Finally, the results underscore the importance of existing knowledge of teams and groups in furthering our understanding of multiteam system processes.

Information Sharing and Performance in Multiteam Systems: The Role of Identity Asymmetries

Many complex organizational tasks are performed by interdependent networks of teams – multiteam systems (MTSs). A critical challenge in MTSs is how to promote information exchange across teams. In ...