From Closed to Open Innovation: The Evolving Nature of Teams and the Use of Information Technology - Information Technology and Product Development - page 136

interconnected team members and exhibits a high level of interaction, while the
periphery is disconnected, larger, and displays a much lower level of interaction
(Crowston, Annabi, Howison, & Masango, 2005). The idea that some groups or
organizations have core/periphery structures is not a new one. The core-periphery
model has been used for models of employment (Felstead & Gallie, 2004), and most
recently dominates the discussion of open-source software development (Crowston
et al., 2005, 2006) in which communities of software developers actively participate
and contribute to the development of an innovation.
The differentiation between core and periphery members is important, as the
processes of norm development, conflict resolution, etc. are likely to involve core
members differently compared to peripheral members (Crowston et al., 2006).
Partners may change roles over the life of a project, but the level of knowledge
and understanding that must be maintained by core members creates a significant
barrier to entry (Crowston et al., 2005). Crowston et al. (2005) also notes that
“shared mental models,” akin to group identity, are likely to be more important
for a core than peripheral model. As Nambisan and Sawhney (2007) note, shared
norms and shared world views are two important antecedents to successful open
innovation.
7.3.4 Team Function
The processes and operation of an open innovation team becomes increasingly com-
plex due to the nature and structure of these teams. With members spread across
boundaries and the often short-term, project-based nature of the team, it can be a
challenge to both create and facilitate such teams. Three particular issues - multi-
teaming, boundary spanning, and connectiveness - appear to be at the center of this
challenge.
7.3.4.1 Multiteaming
To address the demands of today's environment, individuals are frequently assigned
to multiple concurrent teams, have multiple responsibilities, and experience vari-
ability in the amount of time that can be spent on any one project (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1990). For example, at Intel over 60% of the employees report par-
ticipation in three or more teams concurrently, while 28% are on five or more
teams (Chudoba, Wynn, Lu, & Watson-Manheim, 2005). As employees spread
their time between multiple teams both within their organization, and across orga-
nizational boundaries, issues may arise. There may be consequences due to the
fact that a limited number of experts are often in demand for multiple projects.
While many organizations believe that efficiency is increased when development
staff works simultaneously on multiple projects, some believe the opposite to be
true (e.g., Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997). Multiteaming is likely to be on the rise as
organizations move toward open models.