IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v35y2018i6p687-702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Team Effectiveness in Systems Engineering Construction Projects: Explanations Why Some SE Teams Are More Effective than Others

Author

Listed:
  • Robin S. de Graaf
  • Michiel L.A. Loonen

Abstract

The use of teams in systems engineering (SE) projects has become standard practice in many industries. Yet little attention is given in SE literature to explaining why some SE teams are more effective than others. In this study, four civil engineering projects were studied in which SE was used. Two projects were considered effective and two moderately effective. It was explored whether the differences in effectiveness could be explained from the characteristics of the teams. The Team Diagnostic Survey was used to analyse and compare the teams. The findings demonstrate that the Team Diagnostic Survey was able to discriminate between the effective and moderately effective projects and appeared to be a relevant instrument for analysing teams in civil engineering SE projects. The study also revealed that the process of actively exchanging and using team members' knowledge and skills explains for a substantial part the differences in effectiveness of the projects. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin S. de Graaf & Michiel L.A. Loonen, 2018. "Exploring Team Effectiveness in Systems Engineering Construction Projects: Explanations Why Some SE Teams Are More Effective than Others," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 687-702, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:6:p:687-702
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2512
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:6:p:687-702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.