Developing ideas and concepts in teamwork research:Where do we go from here?

PurposeThis editorial seeks to explore changes in both teamwork and developments in teamwork research over the last decade.Design/methodology/approachThe editorial review importantly focuses on the key debates that emerge from the papers covered in this special issue.FindingsA review of the papers in this special issue, as well as historical analysis of teamwork research, indicate that while traditionally, analysis of teamwork was embedded in a manufacturing archetype, much of the contemporary research on teamwork is centred on service sector work where issues of cultural diversity, customer service, and lack of normative integration or task interdependence are increasingly apparent. This editorial suggests that we need to take account of the expansion of the service sector when attempting to conceptualise teamwork and the challenges that collective forms of working in such an environment bring.Originality/valueThis editorial and the special issue more generally provide an important contribution to the development of understanding of how changes in the workplace have had an impact on organisational and academic interest in teamwork.</jats:sec

“Every man for himself”:Teamwork and customer service in the hospitality industry

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the practice of teamwork in an under‐researched, yet growing industrial setting.Design/methodology/approachLongitudinal ethnographic‐styled methods of data collection were used and data was examined using the Team Dimensions Model.FindingsThe findings suggest the Team Dimensions Model, with the addition of a customer service perspective, is of use for identifying managerial objectives and organisational outcomes of teamwork. However, this does not suggest that teamworking is easy to implement in the hospitality setting.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings were obtained using unobtrusive participatory and observational methods and based on a single company.Practical implicationsThe paper allows management practitioners to reflect on realities of implementing teamworking under a corporate customer service initiative.Originality/valueThe paper takes an existing theory on teamworking and develops the theory in an under‐researched and growing industrial sector.</jats:sec

Therapeutic antibodies: current state and future trends--is a paradigm change coming soon?

Antibody-based therapeutics currently enjoy unprecedented success, growth in research and revenues, and recognition of their potential. It appears that the promise of the "magic bullet" has largely been realized. There are currently 22 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use and hundreds are in clinical trials for treatment of various diseases including cancers, immune disorders, and infections. The revenues from the top five therapeutic antibodies (Rituxan, Remicade, Herceptin, Humira, and Avastin) nearly doubled from $6.4 billion in 2004 to$11.7 billion in 2006. During the last several years major pharmaceutical companies raced to acquire antibody companies, with a recent example of MedImmune being purchased for $15.6 billion by AstraZeneca. These therapeutic and business successes reflect the major advances in antibody engineering which have resulted in the generation of safe, specific, high-affinity, and non-immunogenic antibodies during the last three decades. Currently, second and third generations of antibodies are under development, mostly to improve already existing antibody specificities. However, although the refinement of already known methodologies is certainly of great importance for potential clinical use, there are no conceptually new developments in the last decade comparable, for example, to the development of antibody libraries, phage display, domain antibodies (dAbs), and antibody humanization to name a few. A fundamental question is then whether there will be another change in the paradigm of research as happened 1-2 decades ago or the current trend of gradual improvement of already developed methodologies and therapeutic antibodies will continue. Although any prediction could prove incorrect, it appears that conceptually new methodologies are needed to overcome the fundamental problems of drug (antibody) resistance due to genetic or/and epigenetic alterations in cancer and chronic infections, as well as problems related to access to targets and complexity of biological systems. If new methodologies are not developed, it is likely that gradual saturation will occur in the pipeline of conceptually new antibody therapeutics. In this scenario we will witness an increase in combination of targets and antibodies, and further attempts to personalize targeted treatments by using appropriate biomarkers as well as to develop novel scaffolds with properties that are superior to those of the antibodies now in clinical use

Trust in Biotechnology Risk Managers: Insights from the United Kingdom, 1996-2002

The mid to late 1990s saw a series of negative media events in the United Kingdom (UK) related to biotechnology. According to the trust asymmetry hypothesis, such events ought to cause public trust in risk managers of biotechnology to fall quickly but rise slowly. We present evidence from the Eurobarometer surveys that from 1996 to 1999 public trust in the UK declined, but it increased sharply between 1999 and 2002. We seek to explain this apparent contradiction to the asymmetry hypothesis. We use canonical discriminant analysis of public trust to show that whether people trust or distrust risk managers of biotechnology depends significantly on the amount of knowledge people have about science. We speculate that knowledge of science moderates the trust asymmetry effect.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Trust in Biotechnology Risk Managers: Insights from the United Kingdom, 1996-2002

During the late 1990s a series of negative events occurred in the United Kingdom (UK) related to biotechnology. These events signaled potential risks associated with biotech foods and crops and were highly reported. According to the trust asymmetry hypothesis, such events ought to cause public trust in risk managers of biotechnology to decline rapidly and rebound more slowly. We find, based on data taken from the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 1996, 1999 and 2002, that public trust in risk managers did decline from 1996 to 1999. However, the level of trust rebounded sharply between 1999 and 2002. Canonical discriminant analysis of public trust is used to reveal possible explanatory factors in this response. We find that whether people trust or distrust risk managers depends significantly on the amount of objective knowledge they have. We argue that knowledge of science might moderate the trust asymmetry effect.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Risk and Uncertainty,