Teams in CSIRO: Reorganising for national research imperatives
Leon Mann
Centre for R&D Leadership, University of Melbourne, Carlton VIC
Robert J Marshall
Knowledge Teams International, Dickson ACT
PP: 136 - 145
Abstract
CSIRO is the pre-eminent Australian research organisation. In this paper, we discuss how CSIRO, with its new focus on Flagship research, collaborative research, and 'theme and stream' research, faces some major challenges. In our analysis of teams at CSIRO we draw on statements made by CSIRO leaders about team function and importance. We also draw on empirical evidence from studies of CSIRO teams over the past decade for insights into how they are performing and some of their principal characteristics. This provides a point of departure for discussing the challenges ahead.
The paper also touches on the psycho-social challenges of working in Research and Development (R&D) teams, particularly those that cross discipline and organisational boundaries. We look at some design features of CSIRO teams, such as long tenure and practices used to support team formation and development. Our evidence shows a positive profile of CSIRO teams on leadership, resources, and team dynamics and a high level of trust. The Organisation's attention to training its project teams is an important factor in its ability to meet its goals and will become increasingly important as it moves from 2007 to the matrix structure needed to conduct large scale programmatic research of national significance.
Keywords
teams, research projects, collaboration, matrix research organisation
References
Allen T, Katz R, Grady J and Slavin N (1988) Project team aging and performance: The roles of project and functional managers, R&D Management 18: 295-308.
Anderson N and West M (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory, Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 235-58.
Drexler A, Sibbet D, and Forrester R (1994) The team performance model, in Team Building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction, NTL Institute and University Associates, Bethel Maine.
Gillespie N and Mann L (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust in R&D teams, Journal of Managerial Psychology 19: 588-607.
Hirst G, Mann L and Padula M (2005). The effects of team size, tenure, and turnover on communication safety and team performance, in Mann L, Leadership, Management, and Innovation in R&D Project teams, pp.191-210, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Katz R (1982) The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 81-104.
Katz R (1988) High performance research teams, in Katz R (ed) Managing professionals in innovative organizations, pp.315-324, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.
Katzenbach J and Smith D (1993) The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Lencioni P (2002) The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, John Wiley, New York.
Mann L (ed) (2005) Leadership, Management and Innovation in R&D project teams, Praeger, Westwood, Connecticut.
Marshall R and Lowther J (1997) Teams in the test tube: Building team performance in R&D organisations. International Conference on Work Teams, Dallas-Forth Worth.
Pirola-Merlo A, Bain P and Mann L (2005) The impact of team climate on innovation in R&D teams, in Mann L (ed) Leadership, Management and Innovation, pp.147-167, Praeger, Westwood.
Pirola-Merlo A and Mann L (2005) Organisational supports for innovative R&D, in Mann L (ed) Leadership, Management and Innovation, pp.211-30, Praeger, Westwood.
Reddy W (ed) (1988) Team building: Blue prints for productivity and satisfaction, NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, Alexander Virginia.
Science Watch (2001) Science Watch 12(4) July/August.
Wenger E, McDermott E and Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge, Harvard Business School Press Boston.
eContent Home
