|
Session Title: Innovation, Complex Research Teams and Problems of Integration: The Missing Link
|
|
Panel Session 514 to be held in Centennial Section A on Friday, Nov 7, 9:15 AM to 10:45 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Research, Technology, and Development Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Jerald Hage,
University of Maryland,
jerryhage@yahoo.com
|
| Abstract:
The management of innovation literature has a panacea that complex research teams with high rates of communication are responsible for innovation. The problems with this panacea are that it: (1) ignores the difficulties in creating high rates of communication in complex research teams; (2) does not consider the variety of complex research teams that exist; and (3) ignores the variety of linkages or ways in which teams can be integrated into networks of technical information. Our intent is to provide evaluators with check lists for how to determine the missing links of integration and how these might be measured.
|
|
Kinds of Complex Research Teams
|
| Gretchen Jordan,
Sandia National Laboratories,
gbjorda@sandia.gov
|
|
The first problem and one that exists in all research teams is the amount of cognitive distance between the specialties within the complex team. As this distance grows, the possibility for radical innovation increases but communication tends to decline. To overcome this decline in communication, special mechanisms have to be used and policies instituted.
The second problem of integration occurs when we consider the differences between small and large complex research teams. In the latter case, not only is the likely decline in communication augmented but the problem of maintaining a balance between research project autonomy and coordination occurs.
The third problem of integration occurs when we consider the differences in the context of the small and large complex research teams. They are located in different kinds of idea innovation network contexts that can be distinguished by the kinds of gaps that are likely to occur with the growth in knowledge. The key is that the complex teams have to bridge these gaps.
|
|
|
Examples of Integrated and Non-integrated Research Teams in a Highly Innovative Research Organization' the Institut Pasteur
|
| Jerald Hage,
University of Maryland,
jerryhage@yahoo.com
|
|
What are the organizational characteristics that encourage the formation of integration complex research teams? A historical analysis of the Institut Pasteur highlights the following structural characteristics that facilitated the creation of complex research teams: complex charter, terrific trio of visionary leaders, recruitment of scientists from very different channels, and multiple sources of funds. In addition, the Institut Pasteur illustrates multiple mechanisms for creating integration: common training course, duo-team leadership, joint research projects and publications, and a cultural sense of belonging to a family. The departments or laboratories in the Institut Pasteur that had these integrative characteristics achieved radical breakthroughs, while those lacking in these characteristics did not achieve similar breakthroughs. Likewise studies across time indicate how important it is to have complex teams that are integrated.
| |
|
Critique of Current Network Studies: Not Measuring Complex Nodes, Project Integration and Gaps in the Idea Innovation Network
|
| Jon Mote,
University of Maryland,
jmote@socy.umd.edu
|
|
A flurry of network studies has recently been completed but many of these have important limitations and are not connected to the management of innovation literature. In general, these studies fail to identify the network structures and processes that are most appropriate for achieving various types of innovation. One key issue is the need to study network ties in real time rather than on the basis of joint publications, joint research projects, etc. The research environment survey provides a series of questions that solve this, and examines the kinds and extent of various networks connected to the research project. In other words, we should measure links from the bottom up. Another key problem is the failure to measure gaps in the idea innovation network. It is not just a question of links, but which ones and are they in the right location.
| |