Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 480–486 | Cite as

Improving the odds through the Collaboration Success Wizard

  • Matthew J Bietz
  • Steve Abrams
  • Dan M Cooper
  • Kathleen R Stevens
  • Frank Puga
  • Darpan I Patel
  • Gary M Olson
  • Judith S Olson
Case Study

Abstract

Collaboration has become a dominant mode of scientific inquiry, and good collaborative processes are important for ensuring scientific quality and productivity. Often, the participants in these collaborations are not collocated, yet distance introduces challenges. There remains a need for evaluative tools that can identify potential collaboration problems early and provide strategies for managing and addressing collaboration issues. This paper introduces a new research and diagnostic tool, the Collaboration Success Wizard (CSW), and provides two case studies of its use in evaluating ongoing collaborative projects in the health sciences. The CSW is designed both to validate and refine existing theory about the factors that encourage successful collaboration and to promote good collaborative practices in geographically distributed team-based scientific projects. These cases demonstrate that the CSW can promote reflection and positive change in collaborative science.

Keywords

Collaboration Success Evaluation Common ground Collaboration readiness Technology readiness 

References

  1. 1.
    Gibson CB, Cohen SG, eds. Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions For Virtual Team Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003. the Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stokols D, Hall KL, Moser RP, Feng A, Misra S, Taylor BK. Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: Research, training, and translation. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010:471-493.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olson GM, Olson JS. Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact. 2000;15(2/3):139-178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones C. Teleworking: The quiet revolution: Gartner Group; 2005. Publication 122284.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Page SE. The Difference: How the Power Of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen TD, Poteet ML, Burroughs SM. The mentor’s perspective: a qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. J Vocat Behav. 1997;51:70-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraut RE, Egido C, Galegher J. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaborations. In: Galegher J, Kraut RE, Egido C, eds. Intellectual Teamwork: Social Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1990:149-172.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(5):703-722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson C, LaFasto F. TeamWork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park: Sage; 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mattessich PW, Murray-Close M, Monsey BR. Collaboration: What Makes It Work. Saint Paul: Wilder; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olson JS, Hofer EC, Bos N, et al. A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In: Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N, eds. Scientific collaboration on the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008:73-97.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cramton CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci. 2001;12(3):346-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shrum W, Chompalov I, Genuth J. Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Soc Stud Sci. 2001;31(5):681-730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kramer RM, Tyler TR. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neale DC, Carroll JM, Rosson MB. Evaluating Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Models and Frameworks. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chicago: ACM; 2004:112-121.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee CP, Dourish P, Mark G. The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. Proc. CSCW 2006. ACM; 2006:483–492.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ribes D, Lee C. Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: current themes and future trajectories. Comput Supported Coop Work (CSCW). 2010;19(3):231-244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark HH, Brennan SE. Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley S, eds. Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 1991:127-149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferrer R, Stevens KR. A mechanism to increase awareness of workarounds in Med-Surg units. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Improvement Science Summit, San Antonio, TX. 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J Bietz
    • 1
  • Steve Abrams
    • 1
  • Dan M Cooper
    • 1
  • Kathleen R Stevens
    • 2
  • Frank Puga
    • 2
  • Darpan I Patel
    • 2
  • Gary M Olson
    • 1
  • Judith S Olson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations