com
Abstract
It has been previously argued that knowledge heterogeneity compiled with geographic separation of team members hinder eective
sharing and use of a teams knowledge. The paper explores how multidisciplinary teams interact to overcome the barriers and take
advantage of their built in knowledge diversity. The ndings of the research suggest that successful integration of multidisciplinary
knowledge can be achieved through teams boundary spanning activities and reaching to multiple professional and social communities.
Three project boundaries have been identied, project action boundary, project knowledge boundary and project social boundary, which
facilitate team members in articulating diverse knowledge perspectives. The ndings suggest a need to reconceptualise the boundaries
of multidisciplinary teams and to consider the processes of sharing diverse knowledge in a wider professional and social context.
2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multidisciplinary project teams; Knowledge diversity; Boundaries
1. Introduction
With the intensication of globalisation and expansion
in the use of information technology, particular attention
is being focused on the opportunities and diculties associated with sharing knowledge. The exponential growth
of knowledge has made it nearly impossible for any organisation to exist in isolation. Thus, the networked organisation or alliance is becoming an increasingly common
structural form [1]. Previous studies refer to such new
organisational arrangements as virtual organisations, spiders webs, holonic enterprise and smart organisations.
Although, all describe new ways of organising which
enable people and teams to work across conventional
boundaries there are apparent variations in key
characteristics.
A key component of the virtual organisations, for example, is that they are information computer technology
(ICT) enabled [2] and based on computer-mediated communications (CMC) [3]. CMC, therefore, is a powerful tool
to overcome time and distance barriers and a key feature of
virtual organisations. It has been recently argued, however,
that virtual organisational forms emphasise only one element of what is required from organisations in the digital
economy [4]. To be able to respond to the challenges of
the new global marketplace, the organisations have to be
not only technologically enabled, but more importantly
smart in their abilities to enter into virtual collaborations
with other partner organisations and share diverse occupational and cultural knowledge. The main building blocks of
such organisations are the multidisciplinary teams working
from dierent locations and team members belonging to
dierent organisations.
While the potential advantages of multidisciplinary
teams, in terms of creative potential and eectiveness, are
theoretically attainable, empirical evidences suggest that
knowledge diversity constrains eective sharing [510].
These constraints have both occupational and contextual
origins. Dierences in perspectives, priorities, typical
207
[16, p. 6] and it is this which must be claried before multidisciplinary team working can be fully understood or implemented successfully.
For the purpose of this research the author suggests that
what distinguishes multidisciplinary teams from other
types of teams is based upon three dimensions. These are:
numerical, territorial and epistemological. Many argue that
the dierence between inter and multi is largely numerical. For example, how many professions must be present
before a team is truly multi-professional? By way of illustration: the working relationship between technology manager and business manager would be interdisciplinary;
whereas a research scientist, experimental scientist, process
development engineer and production engineer could form
a multidisciplinary team. Moreover, although the number
of professionals involved may provide a clearer platform
for identifying multidisciplinary teams, the dierence
between multi and inter is more than just a numbers
game. Issues of territory and professional boundaries
impact on multidisciplinary working or as Pirrie et al.
put it . . .its like you are crossing into another space. . .
[17, p. 14]. Therefore, simply putting people together in
groups, representing many disciplines, does not necessarily
guarantee the development of a shared understanding. For
example, Fleck discovered in a case of collective problem
solving that dierent occupations have dierent funds of
knowledge and dierent systems of meaning and therefore
they act as if in distinct worlds of thought [18]. Similarly,
Dougherty found in the domain of organisations, that
product development teams including specialists from different organisational functions (marketing, production,
engineering, planning), generally struggle to eectively synthesise and leverage their collective expertise precisely
because their functional diversity acts as an interpretative
barrier [11].
What is therefore, the extra ingredient which turns a
group of professionals from dierent disciplines into an
eective working team? It is argued in this paper that this
distinction is epistemological, dependant not just on a blur
of professional boundaries, but more importantly on the
creation of a new way of working. It is also argued that
a new way of working can not be simply imported in the
team, but it can only emerge and develop through intense
interactions.
3. Challenges of integrating knowledge in a multidisciplinary
context
In spite of the apparent advantages of designing teams
for knowledge diversity, it is by no means clear how team
members make eective use of this knowledge. Grants
[19] observation is that knowledge integration, not knowledge itself, is what generates an advantage for organisations and respective teams. Although, the organisational
form and structure provides the bones, it is the grouplevel knowledge integration that provides the esh and
blood [21]. As new product features are added, new types
208
209
Macro environment
Organisational environment
Team Composition
Interpersonal
Interactions and
relational
capital
l
Knowledge
Integration
Knowledge
diversity
Project
Execution
outcomes
Establishing
Working
practices
Team lifespan
Context
Process
Outcomes
capital are therefore associated with higher levels of learning and knowledge integration.
The willingness of team members consciously and
actively to perform their duties critically depends on developing trustworthy relationships. In an environment without formal control and coordination mechanisms, trust
has been described as a heartbeat which can prevent geographical and organisational distances of team members
from turning into unmanageable psychological barrier
[32]. The literature acknowledges the existence of impersonal or institutional forms of trust in virtual teams in
addition to interpersonal forms. According to Luhmann
[33], impersonal trust is based on the appearance of everything in proper order, rather than on an emotional bond,
knowledge or past history of interactions. Meyerson et al.
[34] developed the concept of swift trust to explain how
temporary teams can enjoy high levels of trust, even though
members do not share any past aliation and can not necessarily expect to have any further associations. The concept of swift trust maintains that . . .unless one trusts
quickly, one may never trust at all. . . [34, p. 192]. Because
there is not a sucient time to develop trust through interpersonal means, team members import expectations of
trust based on their local organisational environment,
industry practices, or role based stereotypes. Positive
expectations of trust motivate members to take a proactive
part in the team, which can result in strengthening trustworthy relationships amongst team members. Relational
capital, therefore, serves as an eective, cost-ecient, and
self-enforcing mechanism that improves knowledge integration while simultaneously discouraging opportunism.
4.2. Working practices and routines
The second team attribute enabling the integration of
diverse knowledge is the developed working practices and
routines (see Fig. 1).
McGraths time, interaction and performance theory
(TIP) [35], describes work groups as dynamic entities which
are time-based, multi-functional, and with multi-modal
social systems. Eective groups are engaged simultaneously
and continuously in three functions: (1) production (problem solving and task-performance), (2) member-support
(member inclusion, participation, loyalty, and commitment)
and (3) group well-being (interaction, member roles, power,
and politics). Teams carry out three functions by means of
activity that relate to four possible modes: (Mode 1) inception and acceptance of a project, (Mode 2) problem solving,
(Mode 3) conict resolution, and (Mode 4) project execution. The modes/functions, according to McGrath and Hollingshead [36], are not a xed sequence of phases, but
dependant on the team, tasks, technology, time, and other
environmental contingencies. TIP theory suggests that a
team with no past history, which is working on a challenging
problem with much technological and environmental uncertainty, has to engage in all four functions and modes to
avoid detrimental eects on performance. Multiple involvement in various functions and tasks and, therefore, low
210
division of roles, can enhance a teams integrity and consequently aect a teams performance.
5. Research methodology and sample denition
Five small and medium size companies in the UK took
part in a longitudinal qualitative study investigating the
team development processes which enable or hinder the
diverse knowledge integration in a geographically dispersed
multidisciplinary context. The results presented in this
paper, are the outcomes of a longitudinal qualitative
research study specically focusing on the processes and
practices of integrating diverse knowledge. A common
characteristic of the sample companies is that they went
through major strategic and structural change processes
in order to maintain their competitive positions. These
change processes revolved around redenition of the vision
and identication of key areas, where innovations and
work process improvements could continually support
the companies strategic edge (see Table 1 for company/
team background information). One of the outcomes of
the restructuring initiatives was the increased reliance on
multidisciplinary virtual teams to handle a variety of business initiatives, formed across organisational and country
boundaries.
The companies selected were initially considered as a
focal point for identifying project partnerships. Each company was asked to identify a multidisciplinary partnership
in which the particular organisation plays a leading role in
terms of resource commitment. In order to maintain consistency between cases, there were three criteria used in
the selection of the ve teams. First, to ensure the diversity
of knowledge and expertise within each case, a starting
selection criterion was: each team includes members which
belong to more than two functional and subject areas.
Therefore, not only that a project team had members representing dierent functions or professions but also that the
scope of the project required diversity of expertise. When
approached, each team was in an initial stage of formation.
Therefore, the author could observe and analyse the interaction processes developing within the teams which could
facilitate or hinder the integration of diverse expertise. Second, to ensure the geographic separation of the team members, teams included members from more than two
organisations (or independent experts) and worked on
the project from dierent locations. This allowed to
observe how the geographic and organisational separation
of team members inuence the way they interact and share
knowledge. Third, it was important to observe whether
electronic communications impede teams interaction and
develops a rapport between team members, which as previously suggested, could have a contra productive eect on
the quality and speed of the shared knowledge. Therefore,
the selected teams were likely right from inception (because
of their geographic separation) to rely on a variety of communication channels with electronic communications being
the main method throughout the lifespan of the project.
211
Table 1
Background information about the researched cases
Cases
tried to bring into the team the best I knew or colleagues recommended. Talent and experience are the most important. . .but people have to be able to work with each other
as well. From previous experience I know to be mindful of
ery personalities. Positive expectations about members
valuable occupational knowledge motivated participants
to take a proactive part in the team, which consequently
resulted in strengthening the trustworthy relationships
amongst team members and contributed to establishing
more active knowledge sharing practices.
The initial composition of the teams was like assembling
a jigsaw where the missing segments of relevant knowledge
have to be found and tted into a perfect whole. As noted
by one team member, It is a tricky project and it requires
some highly specialist skills. The start of the project was
delayed with four weeks as we have to wait for a particular
IT expert who was tied up in another project. Consistent
with past research in product development, these teams
212
responsibilities in the teams and the introduction of complementary external expertise as required. This caused further changes in the teams patterns of interaction and
knowledge base. Therefore, ensuring an appropriate mix
of expertise throughout the lifespan of the project contributed to the progress of the projects, which increased members condence in the ability of the team.
It has been previously hypothesised that cross functional
teams succeed if they manage to apply their collective
knowledge. However, the process of acquiring such collective knowledge has never been clearly identied, perhaps
because the phenomenon has been considered within conned boundaries. The results of this study point a trend
that higher complexity of the project, presupposing higher
requirements for multidisciplinary knowledge integration,
requires higher levels of external experts involvement
and therefore further opening and expansion of the teams
boundaries. For example, very early in the development of
the projects when the concepts and implementation plans
were developed, team members admitted that on a number
of occasions they discussed the technical challenges faced
by their team and sought advice from colleagues or friends
from their personal professional circle. As noted by one
participant, When it gets tricky and the time is running
out, I usually nd a colleague outside the project to bounce
ideas with. . .if noting else this gives me condence that I
am on the right track. The more multidisciplinary the team
was, and therefore with less common knowledge [37]
amongst teams members, the higher was the need to reach
for external advice. In three of the teams such external contacts, which contributed initially with personal advice, were
brought into the team during the stage of concept development. The results of the study conrm that social and personal relationships within a given local (physical) or virtual
community were extremely eective in gaining team members just-in-time access to specialist knowledge and practical skills as and when the team needed it. As indicated by
one team member, My expertise is in a very narrow area,
so in this project I was involved mainly in the conceptual
stage. I am often involved in two or more projects at the same
time. . .but this is the nature of most project work these
days. Through such boundary spanning activities, project
teams gained access to broader and deeper skills and expertise which helped in addressing specic project issues.
Teams members, for example, regularly pulled in their collocated colleagues for assistance with practical advice or
input on decisions, all of which enabled the projects to proceed to the next stage. Seeking assistance from a wider
community, however, was more than just seeking additional feedback and task related assistance, but also looking for moral support when faced with dicult decisions.
Another set of boundaries around the teams started to
emerge which enabled the core team members to articulate
and make sense of their diverse knowledge perspectives. I
refer to such boundaries as project social boundaries. These
are the boundaries within which the integration of diverse
multidisciplinary knowledge can be facilitated.
213
Team/project boundaries
Project action
boundary
Project knowledge
boundary
Project social
boundary
Project
team
Occupational
Knowledge
Contextual
Knowledge
Project Relevant
Knowledge
214
the predened teams boundaries. Therefore, the intellectual, virtual and co-located communities of which members
are part of will become an integral part of the thinking and
discovery processes and ll knowledge gaps by contributing timely and ecient access to broad expertise, practical
assistance and emotional support. However, if a wider
intellectual community is involved, potential diculties
could arise from insuring and protecting knowledge ownership, an issue which requires further careful consideration.
The issue of boundaries, in relation to project work, has
been previously given only limited attention and mainly in
relation to overcoming boundaries, which arise from preexisting divisions of practice amongst team members.
These boundaries, however, have been considered as internal, within the team, and regarded as barriers which have
to be overcome in order to integrate diverse knowledge
rather than expand the teams knowledge [38]. This study
identies that project teams engage in two main boundary-spanning interaction processes, beyond the initial
teams boundaries, which facilitate more ecient knowledge integration. Further, the extended boundaries facilitate not only the articulation of diverse knowledge, but
also enable tapping into additional expertise when
required. Hence, designing a team, members of which
encompass from inception the whole spectrum of required
specialist knowledge, becomes less important. The rst
boundary-spanning interactions take place early in the
development of the project aiming to identify and tap into
additional expertise. The second enable articulation of
diverse perspectives and alleviate dierences resolution.
Developing an in-depth understanding about the
boundary spanning activities in which teams engage, will
require further empirical support. This research highlights
a number of practical challenges in terms of managing such
teams. So far, for example, issues such as teams leadership
and teams eciency have been addressed and solutions
identied within dened teams boundaries. Acknowledging that the boundaries around multidisciplinary teams
are uid will pose new challenges for managers. A question
which needs to be explored further is: Can teams be managed or only directed? What constitutes to manage a team
will call for adopting new managerial practices, moving
away from managing a team as an entity, towards managing project/knowledge boundaries. Managing boundaries,
however, will pose diculties for monitoring and intervening into the project progress, as the team accomplishing it
spans organisational and social boundaries and therefore
members subordinate and report to dierent authorities.
It can be expected that in such extended boundaries, the
core team members and others loosely associated with
the project will have dierent personal objectives and motivations for participation, which do not align with the projects or organisational objectives. Managing expectations
would be of paramount importance for successfully accomplishing a project. Project teams, therefore, will be required
to adopt a much wider set of responsibilities beyond the
immediate technical aspects of the project and be given
215