Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.53.3.121

Zur Bearbeitung komplexer Probleme und zur Entwicklung innovativer Produkte in Industrie und Forschung kommen zunehmend interdisziplinäre Projektteams zum Einsatz. Die zum Teil hoch heterogene Zusammensetzung solcher Teams stellt jedoch hohe Anforderungen an alle Beteiligten, die das Erreichen der Projektziele erschweren oder sogar infrage stellen können. Insbesondere die Integration separater Wissensbestände bereitet hier häufig Schwierigkeiten. In dieser Arbeit stellen wir die Entwicklung und Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung von Problemen der Wissensintegration in der interdisziplinären Projektarbeit vor, mit dem Ziel, ein Instrument zur Diagnose von häufigen Barrieren in interdisziplinären Kooperationen bereitzustellen. Die Entwicklung erfolgte anhand qualitativer Interviews mit Mitgliedern interdisziplinärer Projektteams. Eine erste Validierung der neu entwickelten Skala erfolgte im Rahmen von fünf nachfolgenden Studien (N = 290) und bestätigte Reliabilität und Validität der Skala.


Development and validation of a scale to assess knowledge integration problems in interdisciplinary project teams (WIP)

Interdisciplinary project teams have become ubiquitous for the solution of complex research questions and the development of innovative products in both academic and industrial settings. However, the often considerable functional heterogeneity of these teams puts high demands on team members and can hinder or even endanger the accomplishment of team goals. Especially, the integration of highly specialized areas of expertise is problematic. The present paper describes the development and validation of an instrument to assess knowledge integration problems in interdisciplinary project teams in order to diagnose common barriers in interdisciplinary collaborations. The development of the scale was based on qualitative interviews with members of interdisciplinary project teams. A first validation of the scale through five independent studies (N = 290) confirmed its validity and reliability.

Literatur

  • Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123 – 148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ancona, D. G. , Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321 – 341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, N. R. , West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235 – 258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Antoni, C. H. , Scheffler, D. (2003). Formative Evaluation interdisziplinärer Forschungskooperation: Konzept und Umsetzung im DFB-Sonderforschungsbereich 522 Umwelt und Region. In P. Müller, S. Rumpf, H. Monheim (Hrsg.) , Umwelt und Region: Aus der Werkstatt des Sonderforschungsbereichs 522 (S. 1 – 10). Universität Trier: Selbstverlag SFB 522. Google Scholar

  • Bantel, K. , Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107 – 124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beatty, P. R. (1987). Attitudes and perceptions of nursing students toward preparation for interdisciplinary health care teams. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12, 21 – 27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE/OUP. Google Scholar

  • Bizzel, P. (1982). Cognition, convention and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/Text, 3, 213 – 241. Google Scholar

  • Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfer in Interaktionen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99 – 112. LinkGoogle Scholar

  • Brodbeck, F. C. , Maier, G. W. (2001). Das Teamklima-Inventar (TKI) für Innovation in Gruppen. Psychometrische Überprüfung an einer deutschen Stichprobe. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 45, 59 – 73. LinkGoogle Scholar

  • Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond oneʼs own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart, N. Stehr (Eds.) , Practicing interdisciplinarity (pp. 115 – 133). Toronto: Toronto University Press. Google Scholar

  • Bromme, R. , Jucks, R. , Rambow, R. (2003). Wissenskommunikation über Fächergrenzen: Ein Trainingsprogramm. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 5, 94 – 102. Google Scholar

  • Bromme, R. , Rambow, R. , Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 317 – 330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bunderson, J. S. , Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875 – 893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burger, E. (2000). Kooperationen in interdisziplinären Teams: Subjektive Erklärungsmuster für Probleme in interdisziplinären Kooperationen. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster. Google Scholar

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A. , Salas, E. , Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.) , Individual and group decision making (pp. 221 – 246). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree-Test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behaviour Research, 1, 245 – 276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, H. H. , Murphy, G. L. (1983). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. LeNy, W. Kintsch (Eds.) , Language and comprehension (pp. 287 – 299). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Google Scholar

  • Dahlin, K. B. , Weingart, L. R. , Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107 – 1123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179 – 202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eby, L. T. , Meade, A. W. , Parisi, A. G. , Douthitt, S. S. (1999). The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 366 – 394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, A. P. , Hollenbeck, J. R. , Ilgen, D. R. , Porter, C. O. , West, B. J. , Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821 – 835. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Faraj, S. , Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46, 1554 – 1568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fay, D. , Borrill, C. , Amir, Z. , Haward, R. , West, M. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553 – 567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibson, C. B. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 121 – 134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hambrick, D. , Cho, T. , Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firmsʼ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659 – 684. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harvey, J. , Pettigrew, A. , Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance: Towards mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 747 – 774. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Henke, J. , Krachenberg, A. , Lyons, T. (1993). Cross-functional teams: Good concept, poor implementation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 216 – 229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, 205 – 221. Google Scholar

  • Högl, M. (1998). Teamarbeit in innovativen Projekten: Einflussgrößen und Wirkungen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • James, L. , Demaree, R. , Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85 – 98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • James, L. , Demaree, R. , Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306 – 309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Janssen, W. , Goldworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary research for natural resource management: Conceptual and practical implications. Agricultural Systems, 51, 259 – 279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 – 282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kauffeld, S. , Grote, S. (2003). Teamentwicklung mit dem Fragebogen zur Arbeit im Team. In S. Stumpf, A. Thomas (Hrsg.) , Teamarbeit und Teamentwicklung (S. 375 – 388). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Google Scholar

  • Kauffmann, S. , Frieling, E. (2001). Der Fragebogen zur Arbeit im Team (F-A-T). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 45, 26 – 33. LinkGoogle Scholar

  • Keller, R. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547 – 555. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Klein, J. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Google Scholar

  • Kremer, D. , Bienzeisler, B. (2004). Improving the efficiency and innovation capability of collaborative engineering: The knowledge integration training for teams (KITT). Proceedings of the TMCE 2004, 5th International Symposium on Tools and Methods for Competitive Engineering, Lausanne, Switzerland. Google Scholar

  • Liang, D. W. , Moreland, R. L. , Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384 – 393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lindell, M. K. , Brandt, C. J. , Whitney, D. J. (1999). A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 127 – 135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marks, M. A. , Burke, C. S. , Sabella, M. J. , Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3 – 13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. E. , Heffner, T. S. , Goodwin, G. F. , Cannon-Bowers, J. A. , Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammatesʼ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37 – 56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mathieu, J. E. , Heffner, T. S. , Goodwin, G. F. , Salas, E. , Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 273 – 283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mayring, P. (1997). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag. Google Scholar

  • McDonough, III, E. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of crossfunctional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 221 – 235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Menold, N. (2006). Wissensintegration und Handeln in Gruppen. Förderung von Planungs- und Entscheidungsprozessen im Kontext computerunterstützter Kooperation. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. Google Scholar

  • National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (Eds.) (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press. Google Scholar

  • Pelled, L. , Eisenhardt, K. , Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1 – 28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reiband, N. (2000). Die Bedeutung der Kooperation im Produktentwicklungsprozess. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Eberhardt-Karls-Universität, Tübingen. Google Scholar

  • Riordan, C. M. , Weatherly, E. W. (1999). Defining and measuring employeesʼ identification with their work groups. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 310 – 324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidtborn, A. B. (2006). Evaluation des Knowledge Integration Training for Teams. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Mannheim. Google Scholar

  • Sethi, R. , Smith, D. C. , Park, C. W. (2001). Cross-functional product development teams, creativity, and the innovativeness of new consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 73 – 83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simons, T. , Pelled, L. , Smith, K. (1999). Making use of diversity: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662 – 673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sperka, M. (1997). Zur Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen (KomminO). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 41, 182 – 190. Google Scholar

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen: Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar

  • Steinheider, B. , Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2004). Team coordination, communication and knowledge sharing in SMEs and large organizations. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 3, 1 – 10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steinheider, B. , Bayerl, P. S. (2003). Wissensintegration in interdisziplinären Teams – Probleme und Lösungsansätze. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 5, 26 – 29. Google Scholar

  • Steinheider, B. , Burger, E. (2000). Kooperation in interdisziplinären Teams. In Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft e. V. (Hrsg.) , Komplexe Arbeitssysteme – Herausforderungen für Analyse und Gestaltung (S. 553 – 557). Dortmund: GfA-Press. Google Scholar

  • Steinheider, B. , Ganz, W. , Nogge, W. , Warschat, J. (1999). A model to support expert co-operation. In R. Roller (Ed.) , Automotive mechatronics design and engineering (pp. 159 – 162). ISATA: Croydon. Google Scholar

  • Stout, R. J. , Cannon-Bowers, J. A. , Salas, E. , Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61 – 71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Turnbull, J. , MacFayden, J. , van Barneveld, M. , Norman, G. (2000). Clinical work sampling: A new approach to the problem of in-training evaluation. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 556 – 561. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Vegt, G. S. , Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532 – 547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals (Eds.) , Theory of group behavior (pp. 253 – 276). New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weyer, G. von , Hodapp, V. , Neuhäuser, S. (1980). Weiterentwicklung von Fragebogenskalen zur Erfassung der subjektiven Belastung und Unzufriedenheit im beruflichen Bereich (SUBS-B). Psychologische Beiträge, 22, 335 – 355. Google Scholar

  • Wiersema, M. F. , Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91 – 121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williams, K. Y. , OʼReilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings (Eds.) , Research in organizational behavior (pp. 77 – 140). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Google Scholar

  • Yeh, Y.-J. , Chou, H.-W. (2005). Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 391 – 402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar