Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:34:50.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Longitudinal Study of Teamwork Quality in Design Teams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

H. Singh ,
N. Horvat ,
S. Škec  and
N. Becattini
H. Singh*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
N. Horvat
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
S. Škec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
N. Becattini
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
*
harshika.singh@polimi.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Teamwork quality (TWQ) is often associated with project success. Therefore, understanding TWQ is crucial to have better design project outcomes. Since most of the studies in the past have presented a cross-sectional analysis of TWQ, the current work focuses on capturing TWQ in a longitudinal way for a project-based learning (PBL) course. The results showed that the 6 facets differed significantly during the first half of the course than towards the end. In later phases of the PBL, TWQ and team performance were positively correlated than at the beginning.

Keywords

design educationdesign teamscollaborative designteamworkproduct development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2383 - 2392
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Beal, D. C. R. & Burke, M. M. C., 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of applied psychology, 88(6), p. 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becattini, N., Škec, S., Pavković, N. and Cascini, G., 2020, May. E-Learning Infrastructure Prototype For Geographically Distributed Project-Based Learning. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1667–1676). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brisco, R., Whitfield, R.I., Grierson, H. and Bohemia, E., 2019. Overcoming the challenges of global collaboration through design education. In DS 95: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2019), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. 12th-13th September 2019.Google Scholar
Dayan, M. D. B. A., 2008. Procedural and interactional justice perceptions and teamwork quality. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(8), pp. 566–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O. & Frey, D. L. L., 2005. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), pp. 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eris, O., Martelaro, N. and Badke-Schaub, P., 2014. A comparative analysis of multimodal communication during design sketching in co-located and distributed environments. Design Studies, 35(6), pp.559–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H., Gino, F. & Staats, B., 2012. Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), pp. 998–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. & Admiraal, W., 2020. A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, Volume 102, p. 101586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, P. B. D., 2003. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science, 14(6), pp. 615–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoegl, M. & Gemuenden, H., 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization science, 12(4), pp. 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K. & Gemuenden, H., 2004. Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization science, 15(1), pp. 38–55.Google Scholar
Hsu, R. & Liu, W., 2005. Project based learning as a pedagogical tool for embedded system education. s.l., IEEE, pp. 362–366.Google Scholar
Kotlarsky, J. & Oshri, I., 2005. Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), pp. 37–48.Google Scholar
Kovacevic, A., Vukasinovic, N., Pavkovic, N. and Horak, P., 2017. Evaluation of “Codeve” methodology for teaching npd to virtual design teams. In DS 88: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE17), Building Community: Design Education for a Sustainable Future, Oslo, Norway, 7 & 8 September 2017 (pp. 555-560).Google Scholar
Lau, K., Beckman, S. & Agogino, A., 2012. Diversity in design teams: An investigation of learning styles and their impact on team performance and innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
LePine, J. et al. ., 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel psychology, 61(2), pp. 273–307.Google Scholar
Marlow, S., Lacerenza, C. & Paoletti, J. B. C. S. E., 2018. Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 144, pp. 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, P. & Dzindolet, M., 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(4), pp. 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, S. & de Waters, J., 2004. Creating project-based learning experiences for university-K-12 partnerships.. s.l., IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralph, R., 2016. Post secondary project-based learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(1), pp. 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, L., 2020. Behavior‒Output Control Theory, Trust and Social Loafing in Virtual Teams. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(39), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Savery, J. & Duffy, T., 1995. Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), pp. 31–38.Google Scholar
Scott-Young, C. & Samson, D., 2008. Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), pp. 749–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H., Becattini, N., Cascini, G. & Škec, S., 2021(a). How Familiarity Impacts Influence in Collaborative Teams?. Gothenburg, Sweden, s.n.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H., Cascini, G. & Christopher, M., 2021(b). Comparing virtual and face-to-face team collaboration: insights from an agent-based simulation. s.l., ASME 2021 Virtual International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.Google Scholar
Singh, H., Cascini, G. & McComb, C., 2021 (c). Influencers in design teams: A computational framework to study their impact on idea generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Vogler, J. et al. ., 2018. The hard work of soft skills: augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), pp. 457–488.Google Scholar