The Team Process Capability Model: A Sociotechnical Theoretical Framework for Understanding How Teams Interact with Their Environment

  • Frederick S. SexeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 280)


Numerous examples exist where teams and organizations perform at a high level only to see performance decrease over time. This phenomenon can be observed in manufacturing and engineering organizations where teams provide value to organizations through the use of tools, processes, and procedures to address customer needs. The rapid acceleration of digital innovations aimed at making teams more effective have actually compounded these problems by increasing the complexity of a task while ignoring the capability of the team to harness these new tools. The aim of this paper is to provide managers with a theoretical analysis of how sociotechnical interactions influence team and organizational performance within a larger context of environmental demands. This paper will propose a team process capability model to explain how dynamic social and technical interactions coupled with organizational decision-making influence team and organizational performance. The model will illustrate how team social and technical system interactions are influenced by managerial decisions which subsequently influences its performance. The concept of requisite process capability will be introduced to the reader within the context of resiliency factors such as dynamic capability and environmental uncertainty. Academic readers can benefit from this paper through applying the concepts within this paper to future research related to sociotechnical and organizational interactions. Managers can use the information shared in this paper to improve his or her understanding of how team performance is influenced by such systemic changes as digital and technical innovations or system complexity.


Dynamic capability Organizational resilience Operational performance 


  1. 1.
    Bicheno, J.: The Service Systems Toolbox: Integrating Lean Thinking, Systems Thinking, and Design Thinking, 2nd edn. PICSIE Books, Buckingham, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cusumano, M.A.: Technology strategy and management reflections on the Toyota debacle. Commun. ACM 54(1), 33–35 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kerrigan, M.: A capability maturity model for digital investigations. Digital Investig. 10(1), 19–33 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandal, S.: An empirical competence-capability model of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Disast. Resilience Built Environ. 8(2), 190–208 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naikar, N., Pearce, B., Drumm, D., Sanderson, P.: Designing teams for first-of-a-kind, complex systems using the initial phases of cognitive work analysis: case study. Hum. Fact. 45(2), 202–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naikar, N., Sanderson, P.: Work domain analysis for training-system definition and acquisition. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 9(3), 271–290 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pasmore, W.: Designing Effective Organizations: The Sociotechnical Systems Perspective, 1st edn. Wiley, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vicente, K.: Cognitive Work Analysis: Towards Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work, 1st edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern New Hampshire UniversityManchesterUSA

Personalised recommendations