東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Self-organization and Sense-making i...

Sprauer, William A.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems./
作者:	Sprauer, William A.
面頁冊數:	194 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International77-12B(E).
標題:	Industrial engineering. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10126014
ISBN:	9781339840727

Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems.
Sprauer, William A.

Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems. - 194 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The George Washington University, 2016.

Traditional, corporate-level risk mitigation procedures and management-led performance improvement efforts tend to ignore the relationship dynamics of Architect-Engineer design teams, and instead focus on the credentials and abilities of the individual designers, the contractual framework surrounding the individual projects, and the process for inspecting and controlling the quality of the team's output, the design. Management may tacitly acknowledge the complex nature of the design process, but the notion of design teams as complex systems, or more precisely, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), with their inherently unpredictable behaviors, is not typically considered.

ISBN: 9781339840727Subjects--Topical Terms:

526216
Industrial engineering.

Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems.
LDR:03635nmm a2200325 4500 001 2078383
005 20161122122556.5
008 170521s2016 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339840727
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10126014
035 $a AAI10126014
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Sprauer, William A. $3 3193968
245 1 0 $a Self-organization and Sense-making in Architect-Engineer Design Teams: Leveraging Health Care's Approach to "Managing" Complex Adaptive Systems.
300 $a 194 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: B.
500 $a Adviser: Timothy D. Blackburn.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The George Washington University, 2016.
520 $a Traditional, corporate-level risk mitigation procedures and management-led performance improvement efforts tend to ignore the relationship dynamics of Architect-Engineer design teams, and instead focus on the credentials and abilities of the individual designers, the contractual framework surrounding the individual projects, and the process for inspecting and controlling the quality of the team's output, the design. Management may tacitly acknowledge the complex nature of the design process, but the notion of design teams as complex systems, or more precisely, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), with their inherently unpredictable behaviors, is not typically considered.
520 $a The research herein analyzed the team dynamics of 113 Architect-Engineer design projects to determine if teams that leveraged or embraced (deliberately or unknowingly) the self-organizing and sense-making properties of CAS, to include improvisation, an emphasis on intra- and cross-boundary communication, broad participation in decision-making, autonomy in managing resources, and deliberate use of conflict and uncertainty to alter standard behavior patterns, delivered more successful projects than teams whose leadership attempted (again, deliberately or unknowingly) to overcome those same CAS properties with detailed design or quality control (QC) procedures, a strong organizational identity that informed behavior, concentrated decision-making authority with a focus on efficiency of effort, and swift resolution of conflict. The parameters for measuring project success included adherence to schedule, project profitability, design errors, contractual disputes or litigation, and customer satisfaction.
520 $a An analysis of the data utilizing non-parametric analytical tools, to include Mann-Whitney Rank Sum analysis, calculation of Kendall's tau-b, and ordinal logistic regression, reveals that while encouraging a design team to improvise can improve project outcomes, fostering or allowing self-organization in general is not associated with improved project performance. On the other hand, an environment that promotes team members' sense-making abilities (although the use of conflict or noise as tools to promote adaptive thinking remains problematic) leads to improvements in project success factors. Finally, the results suggest that Architect-Engineer design team management is not a linear enterprise, and that in determining project success, the relationships between design team members may be as important as the technical competency of the designers and the design or quality control procedures they follow.
590 $a School code: 0075.
650 4 $a Industrial engineering. $3 526216
650 4 $a Organizational behavior. $3 516683
650 4 $a Management. $3 516664
650 4 $a Systems science. $3 3168411
690 $a 0546
690 $a 0703
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0790
710 2 $a The George Washington University. $b Engineering Management and Systems Engineering. $3 3168968
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 77-12B(E).
790 $a 0075
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2016
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10126014