Organizational Influences on Interdisciplinary Interactions during Research and Design of Large-Scale Complex Engineered Systems

The design of large-scale complex engineered systems (LaCES) such as an aircraft is inherently interdisciplinary. Multiple engineering disciplines, drawing from a team of hundreds to thousands of engineers and scientists, are woven together throughout the research, development, and systems engineering processes to realize one system. Though research and development (R&D) is typically focused in single disciplines, the interdependencies involved in LaCES require interdisciplinary R&D efforts. This study investigates the interdisciplinary interactions that take place during the R&D and early conceptual design phases in the design of LaCES. Our theoretical framework is informed by both engineering practices and social science research on complex organizations. This paper provides preliminary perspective on some of the organizational influences on interdisciplinary interactions based on organization theory (specifically sensemaking), data from a survey of LaCES experts, and the authors experience in the research and design. The analysis reveals couplings between the engineered system and the organization that creates it. Survey respondents noted the importance of interdisciplinary interactions and their significant benefit to the engineered system, such as innovation and problem mitigation. Substantial obstacles to interdisciplinarity are uncovered beyond engineering that include communication and organizational challenges. Addressing these challenges may ultimately foster greater efficiencies in the design and development of LaCES and improved system performance by assisting with the collective integration of interdependent knowledge bases early in the R&D effort. This research suggests that organizational and human dynamics heavily influence and even constrain the engineering effort for large-scale complex systems

Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity

This article contributes to our understanding of organizational ambidexterity by introducing conflict as its microfoundation. Existing research distinguishes between three approaches to how organizations can be ambidextrous, that is, engage in both exploitation and exploration. They may sequentially shift the strategic focus of the organization over time, they may establish structural arrangements enabling the simultaneous pursuit of being both exploitative and explorative, or they may provide a supportive organizational context for ambidextrous behavior. However, we know little about how exactly ambidexterity is accomplished and managed. We argue that ambidexterity is a dynamic and conflict-laden phenomenon, and we locate conflict at the level of individuals, units, and organizations. We develop the argument that conflicts in social interaction serve as the microfoundation to organizing ambidexterity, but that their function and type vary across the different approaches toward ambidexterity. The perspective developed in this article opens up promising research avenues to examine how organizations purposefully manage ambidexterity

Reconceptualising Hierarchies: The Disaggregation and Dispersion of Headquarters in Multinational Corporations

In this paper, we provide an introduction to the Special Issue entitled "Divide and Rule? The Emergence and Implications of Increasingly Disaggregated and Dispersed Headquarters Activities in Contemporary Firms". The purpose is two-fold. First, we propose a conceptualization of headquarters activities as a dynamic system in which activities can be distributed organizationally and spatially. We explicitly break with the dominant view of the prior research on "the headquarters" as a single, identifiable unit in one specific location. Second, building on the manuscripts accepted for publication in this Special Issue, we outline research implications and put forward an agenda for research on the emergence and continuous management of disaggregated and dispersed headquarters systems

Knowledge processes in virtual teams:consolidating the evidence

This article takes stock of the current state of research on knowledge processes in virtual teams (VTs) and consolidates the extent research findings. Virtual teams, on the one hand, constitute important organisational entities that facilitate the integration of diverse and distributed knowledge resources. On the other hand, collaborating in a virtual environment creates particular challenges for the knowledge processes. The article seeks to consolidate the diverse evidence on knowledge processes in VTs with a specific focus on identifying the factors that influence the effectiveness of these knowledge processes. The article draws on the four basic knowledge processes outlined by Alavi and Leidner (2001) (i.e. creation, transferring, storage/retrieval and application) to frame the investigation and discuss the extent research. The consolidation of the existing research findings allows us to recognise the gaps in the understanding of knowledge processes in VTs and identify the important avenues for future research

Working Across Boundaries: Current and Future Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams

Global Virtual Teams (GVTs) are a commonplace in contemporary organizations, and an already established topic of research in international management. While we have a good understanding of advantages and challenges associated with this ubiquitous form of work groups, this special issue aims to contribute to theory development by focusing on key drivers that influence the success of GVTs, along with ways for mitigating their challenges. We briefly review current knowledge on GVTs and propose a structuring framework that can help with both organizing what we know about GVTs, and with guiding the conversation on where the research on this topic might focus next. We then introduce four special issue articles that illustrate avenues for generating new empirical evidence towards uncovering key characteristics and dynamics underlying GVTs complexities, providing useful insights for both theory development and managerial practice

The rise of project network organizations: building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects

This study shifts attention from project-based firms (PBFs) to project network organizations (PNOs) as increasingly important interorganizational contexts of project collaboration. As a result of organizational specialization, PNOs have emerged as generic organizational forms combining the coordination capacity of PBFs with the resource richness of networks. PNOs connect legally independent, yet often operationally interdependent individuals and organizations in strategically coordinated sets of core project teams and flexible partner pools that sustain beyond singular projects. Based on an empirical review of PNOs in film, event organizing, construction, complex product and system development, research, open innovation and international development, core features, antecedents and differentiating properties of PNOs are identified. Structural differences are related to project variety and connectivity, degree of specialization and geographic concentration of resources. Findings extend our understanding of interorganizational project coordination across fields, and the interplay of PBFs, networks and project entrepreneurship

Making Sense of Successful Global Teams

Global teams tend to underperform. Teamwork often frustrates members compromising the results as well as employee motivation. In practice, bad results are often camouflaged, and both management and team members lack insight into what is really driving teams and why they do not reach their goals. The underlying metaphor our economic model is built on is the “machine” where people instead of active agents with true influence are implicitly seen as resources, executors of processes and walking curriculum vitaes to be aligned in precise ways to achieve often arbitrary goals and to meet unrealistic expectations. This study takes a critical stand towards this mainstream view and applies reflexive methodology, the lens of sensemaking as well as the metaphor and the narrative as rhetorical devices to study how and why global teams form and evolve the way they do over time. The insights of this study are based on an experimental methodology studying many teams from a close range, and reveal how different structurally identical well-performing global teams executing the same tasks can be. Teams when studied from within, are dynamic phenomena rather than static sums of their parts. Alternative team metaphors, such as the “chain gang”, “dysfunctional family”, “sandbox”, “scouts” and “master cooks”, for instance, emerge. The very different team dynamics are in part explained by how successful team members are at social sensemaking – establishing shared understandings around such basic concepts as “leadership”, “good communication” and “team goals”. Individual team members and their capability and willingness to engage in self-reflection and their decisions to act or not to act on what may first appear mundane events, can have huge influence over what their teams become. Sustainably successful teams work both on the task and the team itself and consider the team as a constant work-in-progress and not a fixed entity. This study proposes innovative ways of looking at and studying global teams. People, team members, can be considered active agents, capable human beings on whose sensemaking paths depend on what these teams become and how they evolve over time

Coping with Problems of Understanding in Interorganizational Relationships: Using Formalization as a Means to make Sense

Research into the management of interorganizational relationships has hitherto primarily focused on problems of coordination, control and to a lesser extent, legitimacy. In this article, we assert that partners cooperating in such relationships are also confronted with ‘problems of understanding’. Such problems arise from differences between partners in terms of culture, experience, structure and industry, and from the uncertainty and ambiguity that participants in interorganizational relationships experience in early stages of collaboration. Building on Karl Weick’s theory of sensemaking, we advance that participants in interorganizational relationships use formalization as a means to make sense of their partners, the interorganizational relationships in which they are engaged and the contexts in which these are embedded so as to diminish problems of understanding. We offer a systematic overview of the mechanisms through which formalization facilitates sensemaking, including: (1) focusing participants’ attention; (2) provoking articulation, deliberation and reflection; (3) instigating and maintaining interaction; and (4) reducing judgment errors and individual biases, and diminishing incompleteness and inconsistency of cognitive representations. In this way, the article contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between formalization and sensemaking in collaborative relationships, and it carries Karl Weick’s thinking on the relationship between sensemaking and organizing forward in the context of interorganizational management.Formalization;Sensemaking;Interorganizational Cooperation;Understanding