Team Assembly



Team assembly refers to the process of creating a team of collaborators. Scientific factors, such as the question of what expertise is needed to address the scientific goals, are critical to team assembly. However, so are a wide range of interpersonal and intrapersonal factors. This chapter will discuss the variety of factors to consider when assembling a team, in order to maximize the smooth functioning and scientific productivity of the team.


Teams Team assembly Team formation Scientific collaboration Research collaboration Science teams 



The authors acknowledge the grant award NNX15AM32G from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), grant award IIS-1514427 from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and grant award R01GM112938-01 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).


  1. Aalbers R, Dolfsma W, Koppius O. Individual connectedness in innovation networks: on the role of individual motivation. Res Policy. 2013;42(3):624–34.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm Sci Q. 2000;45(3):425–55. Scholar
  3. Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Adm Sci Q. 1992a:634–65.Google Scholar
  4. Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organ Sci. 1992b;3(3):321–41.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL. Small groups as complex systems: formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Asencio R, Huang Y, Murase T, Sawant A, DeChurch L, Contractor N. Enabling teams to self-assemble: the my dream team tool. Presented at the 5th Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference;2014.Google Scholar
  7. Balkundi P, Harrison DA. Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad Manag J. 2006;49(1):49–68.Google Scholar
  8. Balkundi P, Kilduff M. The ties that lead: a social network approach to leadership. Leadersh Q. 2006;17(4):419–39. Scholar
  9. Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Barsness Z, Michael J. Demographic antecedents and performance consequences of structural holes in work teams. J Organ Behav. 2007;28(2):241–60.Google Scholar
  10. Balkundi P, Barsness Z, Michael JH. Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Res. 2009;40(3):301–22. Scholar
  11. Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Harrison DA. Centrality and charisma: comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96(6):1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44(9):1175–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(3):377–91.Google Scholar
  14. Bell ST. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(3):595.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bercovitz J, Feldman M. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: composition, social networks, and geography. Res Policy. 2011;40(1):81–93. Scholar
  16. Bernard H, Killworth PD. Informant accuracy in social network data II. Hum Commun Res. 1977;4(1):3–18.Google Scholar
  17. Bernard H, Killworth PD, Sailer L. Informant accuracy in social network data IV: a comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data. Soc Networks. 1980;2(3):191–218.Google Scholar
  18. Bernard H, Killworth PD, Sailer L. Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Soc Sci Res. 1982;11(1):30–66.Google Scholar
  19. Bernard H, Killworth PD, Kronenfeld D, Sailer L. The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1984;13:495–517.Google Scholar
  20. Bikard M, Murray F, Gans JS. Exploring trade-offs in the organization of scientific work: collaboration and scientific reward. Manag Sci. 2015;61(7):1473–95.Google Scholar
  21. Birnholtz J, Forlano L, Yuan YC, Rizzo J, Liao K, Gay G, Heller C. One university, two campuses: initiating and sustaining research collaborations between two campuses of a single institution. In: Proceedings of the 2012 iConference. ACM; 2012. pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
  22. Börner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, et al. A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(49):cm24. Scholar
  23. Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad Manag J. 2002;45(5):875–93. Scholar
  24. Burt RS. Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol. 2004;110(2):349–99. Scholar
  25. Burt RS. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  26. Cable DM, Edwards JR. Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and empirical integration. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(5):822–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. CATME. (n.d.). Accessed 19 Oct 2017.
  28. Chompalov I, Genuth J, Shrum W. The organization of scientific collaborations. Res Policy. 2002;31(5):749–67. Scholar
  29. Coccia M, Wang L. Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(8):2057–61. Scholar
  30. Cohen SG, Bailey DE. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J Manag. 1997;23(3):239–90.Google Scholar
  31. Colbert A, Yee N, George G. The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Acad Manag J. 2016;59(3):731–9. Scholar
  32. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988:S95–S120.Google Scholar
  33. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(4):909.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Contractor N. Some assembly required: leveraging web science to understand and enable team assembly. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2013;371(1987):20120385.Google Scholar
  35. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, Committee on the Science of Team Science, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Team composition and assembly. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2015.
  36. Cordery JL, Mueller WS, Smith LM. Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study. Acad Manag J. 1991;34(2):464–76. Scholar
  37. Crawford ER, Lepine JA. A configural theory of team processes: accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Acad Manag Rev. 2013;38(1):32–48. Scholar
  38. Cross R, Cummings JN. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad Manag J. 2004;47(6):928–37. Scholar
  39. Cummings JN. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manag Sci. 2004;50(3):352–64. Scholar
  40. Cummings JN, Cross R. Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Soc Networks. 2003;25(3):197–210.Google Scholar
  41. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(5):703–22.Google Scholar
  42. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res Policy. 2007;36(10):1620–34.Google Scholar
  43. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Who collaborates successfully?: Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM; 2008. pp. 437–446.
  44. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Organization theory and the changing nature of science (SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 2549609). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2014. Scholar
  45. Cummings JN, Pletcher C. Why project networks beat project teams. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2011;52(3):75.Google Scholar
  46. D’Souza GC, Colarelli SM. Team member selection decisions for virtual versus face-to-face teams. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(4):630–5. Scholar
  47. Dabbish L, Stuart C, Tsay J, Herbsleb J. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM; 2012. pp. 1277–1286.
  48. Dahlander L, McFarland DA. Ties that last: tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Adm Sci Q. 2013;58(1):69–110. Scholar
  49. De Dreu CK, Weingart LR. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(4):741.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. De Dreu CK, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(6):1191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Handbook of Self-Determination Research; 2002. pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
  52. Devine DJ, Philips JL. Do smarter teams do better: a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Res. 2001;32(5):507–32.Google Scholar
  53. Duguid MM. Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;116(1):104–15.Google Scholar
  54. Duguid MM, Loyd DL, Tolbert PS. The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: a value threat approach. Organ Sci. 2012;23(2):386–401. Scholar
  55. Easy, beautiful org chart software | Pingboard. (n.d.). Accessed 19 Oct 2017.
  56. Edmondson AC. Teaming: how organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2012a.Google Scholar
  57. Edmondson AC. Teamwork on the fly. Harv Bus Rev. 2012b;90(4):72–80.Google Scholar
  58. Emerson RM. Social exchange theory. Annu Rev Sociol. 1976:335–62.Google Scholar
  59. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Börner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Keyton J, et al. Advancing the science of team science. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(5):263–6. Scholar
  60. Faraj S, Sproull L. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manag Sci. 2000;46(12):1554–68. Scholar
  61. Fazel-Zarandi M, Devlin HJ, Huang Y, Contractor N. Expert recommendation based on social drivers, social network analysis, and semantic data representation. Presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Information Heterogeneity and Fusion in Recommender Systems. ACM; 2011. pp. 41–48.
  62. Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. Am Sociol Rev. 2015;80(5):875–908. Scholar
  63. Fox MF, Faver CA. Independence and cooperation in research. J High Educ. 1984;55(3):347–59. Scholar
  64. Fussell SR, Kraut RE, Lerch FJ, Scherlis WL, McNally MM, Cadiz JJ. Coordination, overload and team performance: effects of team communication strategies. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work; 1998. pp. 275–284.Google Scholar
  65. Gadlin H, Jessar K. Preempting discord: prenuptial agreements for scientists. The NIH Catalyst. 2002;10:12.Google Scholar
  66. Gewin V. Collaborations: recipe for a team. Nature. 2015;523(7559):245–7. Scholar
  67. Ghasemian F, Zamanifar K, Ghasem-Aqaee N, Contractor N. Toward a better scientific collaboration success prediction model through the feature space expansion. Scientometrics. 2016:1–25.Google Scholar
  68. Gibbs K, Han A, Lun J. Demographic diversity in teams: the challenges, benefits, and management strategies. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence- based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  69. González VM, Mark G. Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2004. pp. 113–120.
  70. Grant AM, Berry JW. The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Acad Manag J. 2011;54(1):73–96.Google Scholar
  71. Guimerà R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science. 2005;308(5722):697–702. Scholar
  72. Hackman JR. The design of work teams. In: Lorsch J, editor. Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1987.Google Scholar
  73. Hackman JR. Group influences on individuals in organizations. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, editors. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  74. Hackman JR, Brousseau KR, Weiss JA. The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1976;16(2):350–65. Scholar
  75. Hagstrom WO. Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork. Adm Sci Q. 1964;9(3):241–63. Scholar
  76. Hahn J, Moon JY, Zhang C. Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: impact of prior collaboration ties. Inf Syst Res. 2008;19(3):369–91.Google Scholar
  77. Hansen MT. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm Sci Q. 1999:82–111.Google Scholar
  78. Harrison DA, Humphrey SE. Designing for diversity or diversity for design? Tasks, interdependence, and within-unit differences at work. J Organ Behav. 2010;31(2–3):328–37. Scholar
  79. Harrison DA, Klein KJ. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad Manag Rev. 2007;32(4):1199–228. Scholar
  80. Heider F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley; 1958.Google Scholar
  81. Hertel G, Niedner S, Herrmann S. Motivation of software developers in open source projects: an internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res Policy. 2003;32(7):1159–77.Google Scholar
  82. Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, Wholey D. Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000;81(2):226–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Hollenbeck JR, Moon H, Ellis AP, West BJ, Ilgen DR, Sheppard L, et al. Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(3):599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Huang M, Barbour J, Su C, Contractor NS. Why do group members provide information to digital knowledge repositories? A multilevel application of transactive memory theory. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(3):540–57. Scholar
  85. Hudson JM, Christensen J, Kellogg WA, Erickson T. I’d be overwhelmed, but it’s just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM; 2002. pp. 97–104.
  86. Humphrey SE, Aime F. Team microdynamics: toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Acad Manag Ann. 2014;8(1):443–503. Scholar
  87. Humphrey SE, Hollenbeck JR, Meyer CJ, Ilgen DR. Trait configurations in self-managed teams: a conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(3):885–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Humphrey SE, Morgeson FP, Mannor MJ. Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: a role composition model of team performance. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Jacobs JA, Frickel S. Interdisciplinarity: a critical assessment. Annu Rev Sociol. 2009;35(1):43–65. Scholar
  90. Jahanbakhsh F, Fu W-T, Karahalios K, Marinov D, Bailey B. You want me to work with who?: stakeholder perceptions of automated team formation in project-based courses. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM; 2017. p. 3201–12.
  91. Jehn KA, Shah PP. Interpersonal relationships and task performance: an examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72(4):775–90. Scholar
  92. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322(5905):1259–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Joshi A. By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Adm Sci Q. 2014;59(2):202–39. Scholar
  94. Joshi A, Roh H. The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review. Acad Manag J. 2009;52(3):599–627.Google Scholar
  95. Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Res Policy. 1997;26(1):1–18. Scholar
  96. Katz N, Lazer D, Arrow H, Contractor N. Network theory and small groups. Small Group Res. 2004;35(3):307–32. Scholar
  97. Killworth PD, Bernard H. Informant accuracy in social network data. Hum Organ. 1976;35(3):269–86.Google Scholar
  98. Killworth PD, Bernard H. Informant accuracy in social network data III: a comparison of triadic structure in behavioral and cognitive data. Soc Networks. 1980;2(1):19–46.Google Scholar
  99. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW. From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(3):211–36.Google Scholar
  100. Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ. Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad Manag Rev. 1994;19(2):195–229.Google Scholar
  101. Klimoski R, Jones RG. Staffing for effective group decision making: key issues in matching people and teams. In: Guzzo RA, Salas E, editors. Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1995. p. 291–332.Google Scholar
  102. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Evidence-based principles and strategies for optimizing team functioning and performance in science teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for crossdisciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  103. Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006;7(3):77–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Kozlowski SW, Klein KJ. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW, editors. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000. p. 3–90.
  105. Krackhardt D. Cognitive social structures. Soc Networks. 1987;9(2):109–34.Google Scholar
  106. Kraut RE, Galegher J, Egido C. Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration. Hum. Comput. interact. 1987;3(1):31–58Google Scholar
  107. Kraut RE, Streeter LA. Coordination in software development. Commun. Assoc Comput. Mach. 1995;38(3):69–81.Google Scholar
  108. Kristof AL. Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers Psychol. 1996;49(1):1–49.Google Scholar
  109. Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Pers Psychol. 2005;58(2):281–342. Scholar
  110. Lappas T, Liu K, Terzi E. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM; 2009. p. 467–76.
  111. Layton RA, Loughry ML, Ohland MW, Ricco GD. Design and validation of a web-based system for assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria. Adv Eng Education. 2010;2(1):n1.Google Scholar
  112. Lazer D. The rise of the social algorithm. Science. 2015;348(6239):1090–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi A-L, Brewer D, Van Alstyne M. Computational social science. Science. 2009;323(5915):721–3. Scholar
  114. Leahey E. From sole investigator to team scientist: trends in the practice and study of research collaboration. Annu Rev Sociol. 2016;42(1):81–100. Scholar
  115. Leahey E, Beckman CM, Stanko TL. Prominent but less productive the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Adm. Sci. Quart. 0001839216665364. 2016.
  116. Lee Y-N, Walsh JP, Wang J. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact. Res Policy. 2015;44(3):684–97. Scholar
  117. Leonardi PM. Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: using social media to learn “who knows what” and “who knows whom”. MIS Q. 2015;39(4):747–62.Google Scholar
  118. Leonardi PM, Huysman M, Steinfield C. Enterprise social media: definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2013;19(1):1–19. Scholar
  119. Lepine JA, Dyne LV. Peer responses to low performers: an attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26(1):67–84. Scholar
  120. LePine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Hedlund J. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: much more than g. J Appl Psychol. 1997;82(5):803–11. Scholar
  121. LePine JA, Hanson MA, Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. Contextual performance and teamwork: implications for staffing (Vol. 19). Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  122. Li L, Tong H, Cao N, Ehrlich K, Lin Y-R, Buchler N. Replacing the irreplaceable: fast algorithms for team member recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee; 2015. p. 636–46.
  123. Lin CY, Cao N, Liu SX, Papadimitriou S, Sun J, Yan X. SmallBlue: social network analysis for expertise search and collective intelligence. In: 2009 IEEE 25th International Conference on Data Engineering; 2009. p. 1483–6.
  124. Lungeanu A, Contractor NS. The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: the emergence of a new scientific field. Am Behav Sci. 2015;
  125. Lungeanu A, Huang Y, Contractor N. Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. J Informet. 2014;8(1):59–70. Scholar
  126. Lungeanu A, Carter DR, DeChurch LA, Contractor NS. How team interlock ecosystems shape the assembly of scientific teams: a hypergraph approach. Commun Methods Meas. 2018;12:1–25.Google Scholar
  127. Lykourentzou I, Wang S, Kraut RE, Dow SP. Team dating: a self-organized team formation strategy for collaborative crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM; 2016. p. 1243–9.
  128. Lykourentzou I, Kraut RE, Dow SP. Team dating leads to better online ad hoc collaborations. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. New York, NY: ACM; 2017. p. 2330–43.
  129. Ma A, Mondragón RJ, Latora V. Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(48):14760–5. Scholar
  130. Margolin D, Ognyanoya K, Huang M, Huang Y, Contractor N. Team formation and performance on Nanohub: a network selection challenge in scientific communities. In: Vedres B, Scotti M, editors. Networks in social policy problems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 80–100.Google Scholar
  131. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26(3):356–76.Google Scholar
  132. Marks MA, Dechurch LA, Mathieu JE, Panzer FJ, Alonso A. Teamwork in multiteam systems. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90(5):964–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Marsden P. Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol. 1990:435–63.Google Scholar
  134. Marwell G, Oliver PE, Prahl R. Social networks and collective action: a theory of the critical mass. III. Am J Sociol. 1988;94(3):502–34.Google Scholar
  135. Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag. 2008;34(3):410–76. Scholar
  136. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L. Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Am Sociol Rev. 1987:370–9.Google Scholar
  137. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27:415–44.Google Scholar
  138. Milojević S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(11):3984–9. Scholar
  139. Monge P, Contractor N. Theories of communication networks. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  140. Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. Job and team design: toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In: Research in personnel and human resources management. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2008. p. 39–91.Google Scholar
  141. Morgeson FP, Reider MH, Campion MA. Selecting individuals in team settings: the importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Pers Psychol. 2005;58(3):583–611.Google Scholar
  142. Mortensen M. Constructing the team: the antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organ Sci. 2014;25(3):909–31. Scholar
  143. Moynihan LM, Peterson RS. A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Res Organ Behav. 2001;23(Supplement C):327–78. Scholar
  144. Muchinsky PM, Monahan CJ. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J Vocat Behav. 1987;31(3):268–77. Scholar
  145. My Dream Team Assembler. (n.d.). Accessed 19 Oct 2017.
  146. National Research Council. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2015.
  147. Nomura S, Birnholtz J, Rieger O, Leshed G, Trumbull D, Gay G. Cutting into collaboration: understanding coordination in distributed and interdisciplinary medical research. In: Presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM; 2008. p. 427–36.Google Scholar
  148. Norton WE, Lungeanu A, Chambers DA, Contractor N. Mapping the growing discipline of dissemination and implementation science in health. Scientometrics. 2017;112(3):1367–90.
  149. Nurius PS, Kemp SP. Individual level competencies for team collaboration with cross-disciplinary researchers and stakeholders. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  150. O’Leary MB, Mortensen M, Woolley AW. Multiple team membership: a theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Acad Manag Rev. 2011;36(3):461–78.Google Scholar
  151. Page SE. The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  152. Pelesko JA. Self assembly: the science of things that put themselves together. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  153. Pentland AS. The new science of building great teams. Harv Bus Rev. 2012;(April):60–70.Google Scholar
  154. Perretti F, Negro G. Mixing genres and matching people: a study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. J Organ Behav. 2007;28(5):563–86.Google Scholar
  155. Petersen AM. Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(34):E4671–80. Scholar
  156. Podolny JM, Baron JN. Resources and relationships: social networks and mobility in the workplace. Am Sociol Rev. 1997:673–93.Google Scholar
  157. Reagans R, McEvily B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q. 2003;48(2):240–67.Google Scholar
  158. Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):502–17.Google Scholar
  159. Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B. How to make the team: social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Adm Sci Q. 2004;49(1):101–33.Google Scholar
  160. Reagans R, Miron-Spektor E, Argote L. Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organ Sci. 2016;27(5):1108–24. Scholar
  161. Ren Y, Argote L. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: AN integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Acad Manag Ann. 2011;5(1):189–229.Google Scholar
  162. Ren H, Gray B, Harrison DA. Triggering faultline effects in teams: the importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Organ Sci. 2014;26(2):390–404. Scholar
  163. Resnick P, Iacovou N, Suchak M, Bergstrom P, Riedl J. GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York, NY: ACM; 1994. p. 175–86.
  164. Rink F, Kane AA, Ellemers N, Vegt G v d. Team receptivity to newcomers: five decades of evidence and future research themes. Acad Manag Ann. 2013;7(1):247–93. Scholar
  165. Ruef M, Aldrich HE, Carter NM. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. Am Sociol Rev. 2003;68(2):195–222.Google Scholar
  166. Rulke DL, Rau D. Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group Org Manag. 2000;25(4):373–96.Google Scholar
  167. Saporito B. The Conspiracy To End Cancer | Time; 2013.
  168. Savage N. Collaboration is the key to cancer research [News]. 2018.
  169. Scupelli P, Kiesler S, Fussell SR, Chen C. Project view IM: a tool for juggling multiple projects and teams. In: CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM; 2005. p. 1773–6.Google Scholar
  170. Shah PP, Jehn KA. Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decis Negot. 1993;2(2):149–65. Scholar
  171. Shin SJ, Kim T-Y, Lee J-Y, Bian L. Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a cross-level interaction. Acad Manag J. 2012;55(1):197–212.Google Scholar
  172. Shneiderman B. The new ABCs of research: achieving breakthrough collaborations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  173. Shrum W, Chompalov I, Genuth J. Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Soc Stud Sci. 2001;31(5):681–730. Scholar
  174. Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I. Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  175. Singh J, Fleming L. Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: myth or reality? Manag Sci. 2010;56(1):41–56.Google Scholar
  176. Singh J, Hansen MT, Podolny JM. The world is not small for everyone: inequity in searching for knowledge in organizations. Manag Sci. 2010;56(9):1415–38. Scholar
  177. Skilton PF, Dooley KJ. The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Acad Manag Rev. 2010;35(1):118–34.Google Scholar
  178. Spoelstra H, van Rosmalen P, Houtmans T, Sloep P. Team formation instruments to enhance learner interactions in open learning environments. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;45(Supplement C):11–20. Scholar
  179. Stevens MJ, Campion MA. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J Manag. 1994;20(2):503–30. Scholar
  180. Stevens MJ, Campion MA. Staffing work teams: development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. J Manag. 1999;25(2):207–28.Google Scholar
  181. Stewart GL. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manag. 2006;32(1):29–55. Scholar
  182. Stvilia B, Hinnant CC, Schindler K, Worrall A, Burnett G, Burnett K, Marty PF. Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(2):270–83. Scholar
  183. Taramasco C, Cointet J-P, Roth C. Academic team formation as evolving hypergraphs. Scientometrics. 2010;85(3):721–40. Scholar
  184. Thompson LL. Making the team: a guide for managers. 6th ed. New York: Pearson; 2018.Google Scholar
  185. Treem JW, Leonardi PM. Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook. 2012;36:143–89.Google Scholar
  186. Uzzi B, Spiro J. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am J Sociol. 2005;111(2):447–504.Google Scholar
  187. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science. 2013;342(6157):468–72. Scholar
  188. de Vaan M, Vedres B, Stark D. Game changer: the topology of creativity. Am J Sociol. 2015;120(4):1144–94. Scholar
  189. Valderas JM. Why do team-authored papers get cited more? Science. 2007;317(5844):1496–8. Scholar
  190. Wageman R, Gardner H, Mortensen M. The changing ecology of teams: new directions for teams research. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(3):301–15. Scholar
  191. Wang J, Hicks D. Scientific teams: self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. J Informet. 2015;9(1):197–207. Scholar
  192. Weber G, Yuan L. The power of research networking systems to find experts and facilitate collaboration. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  193. Wegner DM. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer; 1987. p. 185–208.Google Scholar
  194. Wegner DM. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc Cogn. 1995;13(3):319–39.Google Scholar
  195. Wegner DM, Erber R, Raymond P. Transactive memory in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(6):923–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. Welbourne TM, Johnson DE, Erez A. The role-based performance scale: validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Acad Manag J. 1998;41(5):540–55. Scholar
  197. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA. Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav. 1998;20:77–140.Google Scholar
  198. Woolley AW, Gerbasi ME, Chabris CF, Kosslyn SM, Hackman JR. Bringing in the experts how team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Res. 2008;39(3):352–71.Google Scholar
  199. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010;330(6004):686–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316(5827):1036–9.Google Scholar
  201. Zaccaro SJ, Dirosa GA. The processes of team staffing: a review of relevant studies. In: Hodgkinson GP, Ford JK, editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 2012. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012. p. 197–229. Scholar
  202. Zhu M, Huang Y, Contractor N. Motivations for self-assembling into project teams. Soc Networks. 2013;35(2):251–64. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations