Advertisement

Conceptual Modeling of Team Development

  • Marcin JodłowiecEmail author
  • Julia Piecuch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11432)

Abstract

Team development is crucial aspect of human resource management. This study is dedicated to the literature review and the conceptual modeling of this domain in the context of the creation of information systems, which takes into consideration concepts defined within plurality of the models and theories of team development. In order to achieve that, authors have proposed a conceptual UML-based Metamodel of Team Development, abstracting the most important concepts of team development whilst providing decent level of models’ formality and unambiguity. Authors have proposed the mapping procedures to Association-Oriented Metamodel, which preserves precise model semantics and is implementable into actual data structures, in order to verify implementability of undertaken research. To exemplify the approach, example of the team development model for the purposes of training groups has been provided.

Keywords

Conceptual modeling Organization modeling Group processes Group development Association-oriented modeling Model transformation 

References

  1. 1.
    Belbin, R.M.: Team Roles at Work. Routledge, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennis, W.G., Shepard, H.A.: A theory of group development. Hum. Relat. 9(4), 415–437 (1956)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brehm, J.W., Mann, M.: Effect of importance of freedom and attraction to group members on influence produced by group pressure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 31(5), 816–824 (1975)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R.: Group Decis. Negot. 6(2), 159–187 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fine, G.A.: Tiny Publics: A Theory of Group Action and Culture. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hackman, J.R., Katz, N.: Group behavior and performance. In: Handbook of Social Psychology (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heslin, R., Dunphy, D.: Three dimensions of member satisfaction in small groups. Hum. Relat. 17(2), 99–112 (1964)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jodłowiec, M.: Complex relationships modeling in association-oriented database metamodel. In: Nguyen, N.T., Hoang, D.H., Hong, T.-P., Pham, H., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ACIIDS 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10752, pp. 46–56. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75420-8_5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan, S.R., Roman, M.: Phases of development in an adult therapy group. Int. J. Group Psychother. 13(1), 10–26 (1963)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerr, N.L., Tindale, R.S.: Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55(1), 623–655 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keyton, J., Stallworth, V.: On the verge of collaboration: identifying group structure and process. In: Group communication in context: studies of bona fide groups, pp. 235–260 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konieczka, S.: Debating hating: the response and responsibility of a student government. In: Group communication: cases for analysis, appreciation, and application, pp. 167–174 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krótkiewicz, M.: A novel inheritance mechanism for modeling knowledge representation systems. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 51–78 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGrath, J.E.: Groups: Interaction and Performance, vol. 14. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreland, R.L.: Are dyads really groups? Small Group Res. 41(2), 251–267 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OMG: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML). Technical report, Object Management Group, December 2017. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1
  17. 17.
    Sherif, M.: Experiments in group conflict. Sci. Am. 195(5), 54–59 (1956)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slater, P.: Microcosm: structural, psychological, and religious evolution in groups (1966)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tuckman, B.W., Jensen, M.A.C.: Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organ. Stud. 2(4), 419–427 (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turner, J.C.: Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 15–40 (1982)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zabawa, P., Hnatkowska, B.: CDMM-F – domain languages framework. In: Świątek, J., Borzemski, L., Wilimowska, Z. (eds.) ISAT 2017. AISC, vol. 656, pp. 263–273. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67229-8_24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science and ManagementWrocław University of Science and TechnologyWrocławPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Management, Computer Science and FinanceWrocław University of EconomicsWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations