Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research teams as complex systems: implications for knowledge management

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

The recent increase in research collaboration creates the need to better understand the interaction between individual researchers and the collaborative team. The paper elaborates the conceptualisation of research teams as complex systems which emerge out of the local interactions of individual members operating in their local research groups, and which exhibit different dynamics: the local, the global dynamics, and the contextual dynamics. A model of research teams as complex systems is also introduced. This conceptualisation provides unique insights on management of distributed research teams: (a) the internal operations of some teams are more sensitive to external events than others; (b) conflicts emerge as a mismatch of management structures at the different levels in which a team operates; and (c) teams of high complexity have additional coordination needs, which can be fulfilled by the use of information and communication technologies. Recommendations are drawn for the use of a complex adaptive systems model in the field of knowledge management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona D, Goodman P, Lawrence B and Tushman M (2001) Time: a new research lens. Academy of Management Review 26 (4), 645–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow H, McGrath JE and Berdahl J (2000) Small Groups as Complex Systems. Formation, Coordination, Development and Adaptation. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auyang SY (1998) Foundations of Complex-System Theories; in Economics, Evolutionary Biology, and Statistical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barjak F (2006) Research productivity in the internet era. Scientometrics 68 (3), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box G and Jenkins G (1970) Time Series Analysis. Forecasting and Control. Holden Day, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B and Corley E (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy 33 (4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN and Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 35 (5), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft RL and Lengel RH (1984) Information richness: a new approach to managerial behaviour and organization design. In Research in Organizational Behaviour (Cumming LL and Staw BM, Eds), pp 191–233, Jai, Greenwich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darr E, Argote L and Epple D (1995) The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: productivity in franchises. Management Science 41 (11), 1750–1762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA (Eds.) (2003) Introduction: watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge management. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, pp 1–15, Blackwell, Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JS, Handzic M, Carlsson S and Nissen M (2003) Knowledge management research & practice: visions and directions. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1 (1), 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL and Carson ER (1988) Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. Plenum, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gao F, Li M and Nakamori Y (2002) Systems thinking on knowledge and its management: systems methodology for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (1), 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N (2008) Agent-Based Models. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez RA (2010) Developing a multi-agent system of a crisis response organization. Business Process Management Journal 16 (5), 847–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottman JM (1981) Time-Series Analysis; A Comprehensive Introduction for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover V and Davenport TH (2001) General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimeriks G and Vasileiadou E (2008) Changes or transition? Analysing the use of ICTs in the sciences. Social Science Information 47 (1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC and Matt PC (1980) The influence of decision style on decision making behaviour. Management Science 26 (4), 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders D and Vliegenthart R (2008) Telling what yesterday's news might be tomorrow: modeling media dynamics. Communications 33 (1), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz JS and Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26 (1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S and Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science 35 (5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen T, Nedeva M and Barré R (2006) Understanding the dynamics of networks of excellence. Science and Public Policy 33 (4), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles MA and Schwenk CR (1992) Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies 29 (2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1994) Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science 5 (4), 502–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCleary R, Hay JRA, Meidinger EE and McDowall D (1980) Applied Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Sage, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy MW (2000) Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (3), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer ET and Schroeder R (2009) The world wide web of research and access to knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7 (3), 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova S and Sidorova E (2011) From group-based work to organisational learning: the role of communication forms and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JH and Page SE (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems. An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan SE (1999) A note on the correspondence between complexity and systems theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research 12 (3), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roloff KS, Woolley AW and Edmonson AC (2001) The contribution of teams to organizational learning. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA, Eds), pp 249–271, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen R (1985) Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosendaal B (2009) Sharing knowledge, being different and working as a team. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7 (1), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safarzynska K and van den Bergh JCJM (2009) Evolutionary modelling in economics: a survey of methods and building blocks. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 20 (3), 329–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salk JE and Simonin BL (2011) Collaborating, learning and leveraging knowledge across borders: a meta-theory of learning. In Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management (Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA, Eds), pp 605–633, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunn C, Crowley K and Okada T (2002) What makes collaborations across a distance succeed? The case of the cognitive science community. In Distributed Work (HInds P and Kiesler S, Eds), pp 407–430, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum W, Genuth J and Chompalov I (2007) Structures of Scientific Collaboration. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald DH (2007) Scientific collaboration. In Review of Information Science and Technology (Cronin B, Ed), pp 643–681, Information Today, Medford, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiadou E (2009) Stabilisation operationalised: using time series analysis to understand the dynamics of research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics 3 (1), 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiadou E (2010) Working Apart Together; Using ICTs in Research Collaboration. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiadou E and Safarzynska K (2010) Transitions: taking complexity seriously. Futures 42 (10), 1176–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiadou E and Vliegenthart R (2009) Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited. Research Policy 38 (8), 1260–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner C (2008) The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP and Maloney NG (2007) Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2), 712–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper has greatly benefitted from comments by Rafael Gonzalez, Gaston Heimeriks, Diana Lucio-Arias, Karolina Safarzyńska (in alphabetic order), and two anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Eleftheria Vasileiadou

Authors
  1. Eleftheria Vasileiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleftheria Vasileiadou.

Additional information

This article is developed from ‘Research teams as complex systems and implications for research governance’, by Eleftheria Vasileiadou, which appeared in Melkers, J., Monroe-White T. and Cozzens S. (eds.), 2011 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy Proceedings, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. © 2011 IEEE.

One can imagine variable x at the individual level influencing variable y at the team level in an anticipatory mode. That would be described as x(t+1)=ay(t)+b. Path dependence would be formally described as x(t−1)=ay(t)+b.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vasileiadou, E. Research teams as complex systems: implications for knowledge management. Knowl Manage Res Pract 10, 118–127 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.4

Keywords

Search

Navigation