nach oben

Group Decision and Negotiation

Erschienen in:

01.09.2014

Team Climate, Team Cognition, Team Intuition, and Software Quality: The Moderating Role of Project Complexity

verfasst von: Atif Açıkgöz, Ayşe Günsel, Nizamettin Bayyurt, Cemil Kuzey

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 5/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Teams represent a prevailing approach to getting work done in today’s hypercompetitive business environment. Although there is a widely held assumption that team-related capabilities determine the success of new product development projects, empirical research on team capabilities is scant. Based on the resource-based view of the firm, organizational learning theory, and situated learning theory, this study investigates the interrelationships among team climate, two information-processing capabilities (i.e., team cognition and team intuition), and software quality. As well, this study explores the moderating effect of project complexity between the information-processing capabilities and the quality of the software. In studying the data from 139 software development projects using the partial least squares structural equation modeling methods, we found that team climate has a direct influence on team cognition. Moreover, the findings showed that team cognition was positively related to the quality of the software product in general; in particular, this relationship was found to be far more significant when project complexity was used as a moderator. This finding indicates that the software development team’s ability to process information logically in order to interpret situations effectively allows the team to launch superior software products when unexpected and undesirable events make a project complicated and challenging to perform. In particular, managers should encourage teams to benefit from new ideas and make collective efforts for reaching goals. Managers should also enable teams to specialize in their tasks and improve their collective information-processing capabilities.

Vorheriger Artikel Developing Group Ordered Weighted Averaging Operator Weights for Group Decision Support

Nächster Artikel Relational Psychoanalytic Perspective on the Negotiation Dialogue: Using the Rorschach Inkblot Method for Assessing Integrative Complexity

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ajila SA, Wu D (2007) Empirical study of the effects of open source adoption on software development economics. J Syst Softw 80(9):1517–1529CrossRef

Akgün AE, Lynn GS, Reilly R (2002) Multi-dimensionality of learning in new product development teams. Eur J Innov Manag 5(2):57–72CrossRef

Akgün AE, Keskin H, Byrne JC, Aren S (2007) Emotional and learning capability and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation 27(9):501–513CrossRef

Akgün AE, Dayan M, Di Benedetto A (2008) New product development team intelligence: antecedents and consequences. Inf Manag 45(4):221–226CrossRef

Aladwani AM (2002) An integrated performance model of information systems projects. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):185–210

Amabile TM, Gryskiewicz N (1989) The creative environment scales: The work environment inventory. Creativity Res J 2(4):231–254CrossRef

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psycgol Bull 103(3):411–423CrossRef

Anderson N, West MA (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav 19(3):235–258CrossRef

Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120

Basaglia S, Caporarello L, Magni M, Pennarola F (2010) IT knowledge integration capability and team performance: the role of team climate. Int J Inf Manag 30:542–551CrossRef

Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330CrossRef

Bertels HMJ, Kleinschmidt EJ, Koen PA (2011) Communities of practice versus organizational climate: which one matters more to dispersed collaboration in the front end of innovation? J Prod Innovn Manag 28(5):757–772

Betsch T, Glöckner A (2010) Intuition in judgment and decision making: extensive thinking without effort. Psychol Inquiry 21(4):279–294CrossRef

Blazevic V, Lievens A (2004) Learning during the new financial service innovation process: antecedents and performance effects. J Bus Res 57(4):374–391CrossRef

Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Admin Sci Q 36(3):421–458CrossRef

Bollen KA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, New York

Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (2001) Reflections on shared cognition. J Organ Behav 22(2):195–202CrossRef

Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern business research methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 295–336

Chin W, Marcolin BK, Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res 14(2):189–217CrossRef

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

Cooke NJ, Salas E, Kiekel PA, Bell B (2004) Advances in measuring team cognition. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 83–106

Cote M-A, Suryn W, Georgiadou E (2007) In search for a widely applicable and accepted software quality model for software quality engineering. Softw Qual J 15(4):401–416CrossRef

Dane E, Pratt MG (2007) Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):33–54CrossRef

Dawidson O, Karlsson M, Trygg L (2004) Complexity perception—model development and analysis of two technical platform projects in the mobile phones industry. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 3(3):493–512CrossRef

Dayan M, Di Benedetto A (2011) Team intuition as a continuum construct and new product creativity: the role of environmental turbulence, team experience, and stress. Res Policy 40(2):276–286CrossRef

Dayan M, Elbanna S (2011) Antecedents of team intuition and its impact on the success of new product development projects. J Prod Innov Manag 28(1):159–174CrossRef

D’aveni RA (1994) Hypercompetition: managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. The Free Press, New York, With R Gunther

Dickson MW, Resick CJ, Hanges PJ (2006) When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. J Appl Psychol 91(2):351–364CrossRef

Dosi G, Faillo M, Marengo L (2008) Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms: An introduction. Organ Stud 29(8/9):1165–1211CrossRef

Drach-Zahavy A (2004) Exploring team support: the role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 8(4):235–252CrossRef

Edmondson AC, Nembhard IM (2009) Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits. J Prod Innov Manag 26(2):123–138CrossRef

Ekvall G, Britz A, Lauer KJ (2001) Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creat Res J 13(2):171–184CrossRef

Evans JBT (2003) In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 7(10):454–459CrossRef

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRef

Fox S (1997) Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning theory: why management education should not ignore management learning. Syst Pract 10(6):727–747CrossRef

García-Morales VJ, Jiménez-Barrionuevo MM, Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez L (2012) Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. J Bus Res 65(7):1040–1050CrossRef

Garvin DA (1984) What does ‘product quality’ really means? Sloan Manag Rev 26(1):25–43

Geraldi JG (2009) What complexity assessments can tell us about projects: dialogue between conception and perception. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 21(5):665–678CrossRef

González-Romá V, Fortes-Ferreira L, Peiró JM (2009) Team climate, climate strength and team performance: a longitudinal study. J Occup Organ Psychol 82(3):511–536CrossRef

Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(7):109–122CrossRef

Graziano AM, Raulin ML (1997) Research methods: a process of inquiry. Addison-Wesley, New York

Green GC, Hevner AR, Collins RW (2005) The impacts of quality and productivity perceptions on the use of software process improvement innovations. Inf Softw Technol 47(8):543–553CrossRef

Günsel A, Açıkgöz A (2013) The effects of team flexibility and emotional intelligence on software development performance. Group Decis Negot 22(2):359–377CrossRef

Harman HH (1960) Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

He J, Butler BS, King WR (2007) Team cognition: development and evolution in software project teams. J Manag Inf Syst 24(2):261–292CrossRef

Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manag J 24(10):997–1010CrossRef

Hodgkinson GP, Langan-Fox J, Sadler-Smith E (2008) Intuition: a fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. Br J Psychol 99(1):1–27CrossRef

Hodgkinson GP, Sadler-Smith E, Burke LA, Claxton G, Sparrow PR (2009) Intuition in organizations: implications for strategic management. Long Range Plan 42(3):277–297CrossRef

Huang J-W, Li Y-H (2012) Slack resources in team learning and project performance. J Bus Res 65(3):381–388CrossRef

Huber GP, Power DJ (1985) Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strateg Manag J 6(2):171–180CrossRef

Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literature. Organ Sci 2(1):88–115CrossRef

Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark 62(3):42–54CrossRef

ISO/IEC: FCD 9126–1.2. (2001) Information Technology - Software Product Quality. Part 1: Quality Model. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=22749 [Retrieved 10 August 2011]

Jarvis CB, Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res 30(2):199–218CrossRef

Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: construct or metaphor? J Manag 20(2):403–437

Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Levesque LL, Wilson JM, Wholey DR (2001) Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. J Organ Behav 22(2):135–144CrossRef

Lynn GS, Akgün AE (1998) Innovation strategies under the uncertainty: a continence approach. Eng Manag J 10:11–17

Lynn GS, Skov RB, Abel KD (1999) Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success. J Prod Innov Manag 16(5):439–454CrossRef

Maruping LM, Magni M (2012) What’s the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals’ technology exploration and use. J Manag Inf Syst 29(1):79–113CrossRef

Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283CrossRef

Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K (2010) Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J Manag 36(4):876–910

Moorman C (1995) Organizational market information processes: culture antecedents and new product outcomes. J Mark Res 32(3):318–335CrossRef

Moorman C, Miner AS (1997) The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. J Mark Res 34(1):91–106CrossRef

Nidumolu S (1995) The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Inf Syst Res 6(3):191–219CrossRef

Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37CrossRef

Park HS, Baker C, Lee DW (2008) Need for cognition, task complexity, and job satisfaction. J Manag Eng 24(2):111–117CrossRef

Patton JR (2003) Intuition in decisions. Manag Decis 41(10):989–996CrossRef

Pee LG, Kankanhalli A, Kim HW (2010) Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 11(10):550–575

Phillips LW, Bagozzi RP (1986) On measuring organizational properties of distribution channels: methodological issues in the use of key informants. Res Mark 8(3):313–369

Pirola-Merlo A (2010) Agile innovation: the role of team climate in rapid research and development. J Occup Organ Psychol 83(4):1075–1084CrossRef

Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRef

Resick CJ, Dickson MW, Mitchelson JK, Allison LK, Clark MA (2010) Team composition, cognition, and effectiveness: examining mental model similarity and accuracy. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 14(2):174–191CrossRef

Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS—Version 2.0. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg

Sadler-Smith E, Shefy E (2004) The intuitive executive: Understanding and applying ‘gut feel’ in decision-making. Acad Manag Executive 18(4):76–91CrossRef

Sauter VL (1999) Intuitive decision-making. Commun ACM 42(6):109–115CrossRef

Sayegh L, Anthony WP, Perrewé PL (2004) Managerial decision-making under crisis: the role of emotion in an intuitive decision process. Hum Resour Manag Rev 14(2):179–199CrossRef

Segars AH (1997) Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega 25(1):107–121CrossRef

Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency-Doubleday, New York

Sinkula JM, Baker WE, Noordeweir T (1997) A framework for market-based organisational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behaviour. J Acad Mark Sci 25:305–318CrossRef

Škerlavaj M, Štemberger MI, Škrinjar R, Dimovski V (2007) Organizational learning culture—the missing link between business process change and organizational performance. Int J Prod Econ 35(3):346–367CrossRef

Tenenhaus VE, Vinzi Y-M, Chatelin CL (2005) PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(1):159–205CrossRef

The Standish Group International (2001) Extreme CHAOS. Available at: http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos/introduction.pdf [Retrieved 05 August 2011]

Tyre MJ, von Hippel E (1997) The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organ Sci 8(1):71–83CrossRef

Uhlenbruck K, Meyer KE, Hitt MA (2003) Organizational transformation in transitional economies: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. J Manag Stud 40(2):257–282CrossRef

Vlaar P, van Fenema P, Tiwari V (2008) Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: how members of onsite and offshore vendor team give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Q 32(2):227–255

West MA (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: West MA, Farr JL (eds) Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and organizational strategies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 81–100

West GP III (2007) Collective cognition: when entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract 31(1):77–102CrossRef

Williams TM (1999) The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int J Proj Manag 17(5):269–273CrossRef

Xia W, Lee G (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: conceptualization and measurement development. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):45–83CrossRef

Yang J-S, Chen C-Y (2005) Systemic design for improving team learning climate and capability: a case study. Total Qual Manag 16(6):727–740CrossRef

Yang C, Chen L-C (2007) Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? J Inf Sci 33(1):95–109CrossRef

Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92CrossRef

Zellmer-Bruhn M, Gibson CB (2006) Team strategic context: implications for process and performance. Acad Manag J 49(3):501–518CrossRef

Titel: Team Climate, Team Cognition, Team Intuition, and Software Quality: The Moderating Role of Project Complexity
verfasst von: Atif Açıkgöz
Ayşe Günsel
Nizamettin Bayyurt
Cemil Kuzey
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9367-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2014

Developing Group Ordered Weighted Averaging Operator Weights for Group Decision Support

An Assessment Framework for Practicing Facilitator

Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System

Relational Psychoanalytic Perspective on the Negotiation Dialogue: Using the Rorschach Inkblot Method for Assessing Integrative Complexity

Agent-Based Reallocation Problem on Social Networks

Does Heterogeneity Help in Overcoming the Public Goods Dilemma in a Sequential Contribution Environment?

Premium Partner