Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
Submit Manuscript
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2018 Volume 33
Article Contents
Next Previous
ORIGINAL RESEARCH   Open Access    

The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology

  • 1.

    IIIA-CSIC

  • 2.

    Passeig de Gràcia

  • 3.

    Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 08035 Barcelona

More Information
  • Abstract: Nowadays the composition and formation of effective teams is highly important for both companies to assure their competitiveness and for a wide range of emerging applications exploiting multiagent collaboration (e.g. crowdsourcing, human-agent collaborations). The aim of this article is to provide an integrative perspective on team composition, team formation, and their relationship with team performance. Thus, we review the contributions in both the computer science literature and the organizational psychology literature dealing with these topics. Our purpose is twofold. First, we aim at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the contributions made by these two diverse bodies of research. Second, we aim at identifying cross-fertilization opportunities that help both disciplines benefit from one another. Given the volume of existing literature, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, we have preferred to focus on the most significant contributions in both fields together with recent contributions that break new ground to spur innovative research.
  • 加载中
  • Agmon N., Barrett S. & Stone P. May 2014. Modeling uncertainty in leading ad hoc teams. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS).

    Google Scholar

    Anagnostopoulos A., Becchetti L., Castillo C., Gionis A. & Leonardi S. 2012. Online team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, WWW, 839–848, April 16–20.

    Google Scholar

    Andrejczuk E., Rodriguez-Aguilar J. A. & Sierra C. 2016. Optimising congenial teams. In International Workshop on Optimisation in Multi-Agent Systems (OPTMAS).

    Google Scholar

    Andrejczuk E., Rodriguez-Aguilar J. A., Roig C & Sierra C. 2017. Synergistic team composition (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 1463–1465. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Barrett S., Stone P., Kraus S. & Rosenfeld A. July 2013. Teamwork with limited knowledge of teammates. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar

    Bartol K. M. 1977. Building synergistic edp teams. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual SIGCPR Conference.

    Google Scholar

    Bartram D. & Roe R. A. 2005. Definition and assessment of competences in the context of the european diploma in psychology. European Psychologist 10(2), 93–99.

    Google Scholar

    Bear J. B. & Woolley A. W. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2), 146–153.

    Google Scholar

    Belbin R. M. 1993. Team Roles at Work: A Strategy for Human Resource Management. Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar

    Bell S. T. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3), 595–615.

    Google Scholar

    Brodbeck F. C. 2003. Team climate for learning in higher education. Aston Network (Summer), 4–5.

    Google Scholar

    Butchibabu A., Sparano-Huiban C., Sonenberg L. & Shah J. 2016. Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58(4), 595–610.

    Google Scholar

    Campion M. A., Medsker G. J. & Higgs A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology 46, 823–847.

    Google Scholar

    Carley K. M., Moon Il C., Schneider M. & Shigiltchoff O. 2005. Detailed analysis of factors affecting team success and failure in the america’s army game. Technical Report.

    Google Scholar

    Chalkiadakis G. & Boutilier C. 2012. Sequentially optimal repeated coalition formation under uncertainty. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 24(3), 441–484.

    Google Scholar

    Chen B., Chen X., Timsina A. & Soh L. 2015. Considering agent and task openness in ad hoc team formation. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2015, 1861–1862, May 4–8.

    Google Scholar

    Crawford C., Rahaman Z. & Sen S. 2016. Evaluating the efficiency of robust team formation algorithms. In International Workshop on Optimisation in Multi-Agent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Delgado Pña M. I., Romero Martinez M. A. & Gomez Martinez L. 2008. Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14(1/2), 7–21.

    Google Scholar

    Devine D. J. 2002. A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6(4), 291–310.

    Google Scholar

    Devine D. J. & Philips J. L. 2001. Do smarter teams do better a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research 32(5), 507–532.

    Google Scholar

    Edmondson A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 350–383.

    Google Scholar

    Farhangian M., Purvis M. K., Purvis M. & Savarimuthu B. T. R. 2015a. Agent-based modeling of resource allocation in software projects based on personality and skill. In Communications in Computer and Information Science, 130–146.

    Google Scholar

    Farhangian M., Purvis M. K., Purvis M. & Savarimuthu B. T. R. 2015b. Modeling the effects of personality on team formation in self-assembly teams. In PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 18th International Conference, Proceedings, 538–546, October 26–30.

    Google Scholar

    Garavan T. N. & McCarthy A. 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10, 451–471.

    Google Scholar

    Genter K., Laue T. & Stone P. 2017. Three years of the robocup standard platform league drop-in player competition: creating and maintaining a large scale ad hoc teamwork robotics competition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 31(4), 790–820.

    Google Scholar

    Gibson C. B. & Kirkman B. L. 1999. Our past, present, and future in teams: the role of human resource professionals in managing team performance. Evolving practices in human resource management: Responses to a changing world of work, 90–117.

    Google Scholar

    Guzzo R. A. & Dickson M. W. 1996. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 307–338.

    Google Scholar

    Hackman J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar

    Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar

    Hackman J. R. & Lawler E. E. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 55(3), 259–286.

    Google Scholar

    Hackman J. R. & Oldham G. R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2), 159–170.

    Google Scholar

    Hanna N. & Richards D. 2015. Do birds of a feather work better together? The impact of virtual agent personality on a shared mental model with humans during collaboration. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Collaborative Online Organizations, COOS 2016, Co-Located With the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2015, 28–37, May 4.

    Google Scholar

    Haque M., Egerstedt M. & Rahmani A. 2013. Multilevel coalition formation strategy for suppression of enemy air defenses missions. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems 10(6), 287–296.

    Google Scholar

    Hoffman G. & Breazeal C. 2004. Collaboration in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 1st AIAA04 Intelligent Systems Conference.

    Google Scholar

    Holmstrom B. T. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. The Bell Journal of Economics 13(2), 324–340.

    Google Scholar

    Horwitz S. K. & Horwitz I. B. 2007. The effect of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analyitic review of team demography. Journal of Management 33(6), 987–1015.

    Google Scholar

    James L. R., Choi C., Ko C. H. E., McNeil P., Minton M. & Wright M. A. 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17, 5–32.

    Google Scholar

    Jennings N. R., Moreau L., Nicholson D., Ramchurn S., Roberts S., Rodden T. & Rogers A. 2014. Human-agent collectives. Communications of the ACM 57(12), 80–88.

    Google Scholar

    Kargar M., An A. & Zihayat M. 2012. Efficient bi-objective team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2012 European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases – Volume Part II, 483–498. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Knapp R. 2010. Collective (team) learning process models: a conceptual review. Human Resource Development Review 9, 286–299.

    Google Scholar

    Komaki, L. 2009. Behind the scenes: fieldtesting a measure of effectiveness for theater teams. In Team performance, Assessment and Measurement, Brannick, M. T. Salas E. & Prince C. (eds). LEA.

    Google Scholar

    Kozlowski S. W. J. & Bell B. S. 2013. Work groups and teams in organizations: review update. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/927.

    Google Scholar

    Kozlowski, S. W. & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public interest 7, 28–77.

    Google Scholar

    Laal M. & Salamati P. 2012. Lifelong learning; why do we need it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 31, 399–403.

    Google Scholar

    Lappas T., Liu K. & Terzi E. 2009. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 467–476. ACM.

    Google Scholar

    Leavitt A., Keegan B. C. & Clark J. 2016. Ping to win?: Non-verbal communication and team performance in competitive online multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4337–4350. ACM.

    Google Scholar

    Liemhetcharat S. & Veloso M. 2014. Team formation with learning agents that improve coordination. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS’14, 1531–1532. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Liemhetcharat S. & Veloso M. M. 2012. Modeling and learning synergy for team formation with heterogeneous agents. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, 3, 365–374, June 4–8.

    Google Scholar

    Lorenz J., Rauhut H., Schweitzer F. & Helbing D. 2011. How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (22): 9020–9025.

    Google Scholar

    Maghami M. & Sukthankar G. 2011. An agent-based simulation for investigating the impact of stereotypes on task-oriented group formation. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, 252–259. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Malone T. W. & Crowston K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 26(1), 87–119.

    Google Scholar

    Mao A., Mason W., Suri S. & Watts D. J. 2016. An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PloS One 11(4), e0153048.

    Google Scholar

    Marcolino L. S., Jiang A. X. & Tambe A. 2013. Multi-agent team formation: diversity beats strength? In IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 3–9.

    Google Scholar

    Marcolino L. S., Xu H., Gerber D., Kolev B., Price S., Pantazis E. & Tambe M. 2016. Multi-agent team formation for design problems. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems XI. Lecture Notes in AI. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E. & Zaccaro S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 26(3), 356–376.

    Google Scholar

    Martz W. BJr, Vogel R. R. & Nunamaker J. F.Jr. 1992. Electronic meeting systems: results from the field. Decision Support Systems 8, 141–158.

    Google Scholar

    Mathieu J., Maynard M. T., Rapp T. & Gilson L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management 34(3), 410–476.

    Google Scholar

    Mathieu J. E., Maynard M. T., Taylor S. R., Gilson L. L. & Rudy T. M. 2007. An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, 891–910.

    Google Scholar

    McGrath J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance, 14. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar

    Meneses R. & Navarro J. 2015. How to improve team effectiveness through group processes: an example in the automotive industry. Papeles del Psicologo 36(3), 224–229.

    Google Scholar

    Moon I. C., Carley K., Schneider M. & Shigiltchoff O. 2005. Detailed analysis of team movement and communication affecting team performance in the america’s army game.

    Google Scholar

    Mount M. K., Barrick M. R. & Stewart G. L. 1998. Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

    Google Scholar

    Myers I. B., McCaulley M. H, Quenk N. L. & Hammer L. 1998. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3. Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar

    Nagarajan V., Marcolino L. S. & Tambe M. 2015. Every team deserves a second chance: identifying when things go wrong (student abstract version). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4184–4185, January 25–30.

    Google Scholar

    Navarro J., Quijano S., Berger R. & Meneses R. 2011. Work-groups in organizations: a basic tool to manage increasing complexity and ambiguity. Papeles del Psicologo 32, 17–28.

    Google Scholar

    Okimoto T., Schwind N., Clement M., Ribeiro T., Inoue K. & Marquis P. 2015. How to form a task-oriented robust team. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS’15, 395–403. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

    Google Scholar

    Olivera F. & Argote L. 1999. Organizational learning and new product development: core processes. In Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Levine, J. M., Thompson, L. L. & Messick, D. M. (eds). Psychology Press, 297–326.

    Google Scholar

    Osatuyi B. J. 2012. Effects of information importance and distribution on information exchange in team decision making. New Jersey Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar

    Osipov K. & Sukthankar G. 2012. Amalgacloud: social network adaptation for human and computational agent team formation. Human Journal 1(2), 61–73.

    Google Scholar

    Oyster C. K. 1999. Groups: A Users Guide. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar

    Peleteiro A., Burguillo-Rial J. C., Luck M., Arcos J. L. & Rodriguez-Aguilar J. A. 2015. Using reputation and adaptive coalitions to support collaboration in competitive environments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 45, 325–338.

    Google Scholar

    Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B. & Michael A. 1997. Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology 82(6), 974–983.

    Google Scholar

    Quijano S., Navarro J., Yepes M., Berger R. & Romeo M. 2008. Human system audit (HSA) for the analysis of human behaviour in organizations. Papeles del Psicologo 29(1), 92–106.

    Google Scholar

    Rahwan T., Michalak T. P., Elkind E., Faliszewski P., Sroka J., Wooldridge M. & Jennings N. R. 2011. Constrained coalition formation. In AAAI, W. Burgard and D. Roth (eds). AAAI Press, 719–725.

    Google Scholar

    Ramchurn S. D., Farinelli A., Macarthur K. S. & Jennings N. R. 2010. Decentralized coordination in robocup rescue. Computer Journal 53(9), 1447–1461.

    Google Scholar

    Ramchurn S. D., Wu F., Fischer J. E., Reece S., Roberts J. W, S. J, Rodden T & Jennings N. R. 2016. Human-agent collaboration for disaster response. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30(1), 82–111.

    Google Scholar

    Ramezan M. 2011. Intellectual capital and organizational organic structure in knowledge society: how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management 31, 88–95.

    Google Scholar

    Ramirez-Heller B., Berger R. & Brodbeck F. C. 2014. Does an adequate team climate for learning predict team effectiveness and innovation potential? A psychometric validation of the team climate questionnaire for learning in an organizational context. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 114, 543–550.

    Google Scholar

    Rangapuram S. S., Biihler T. & Hein M. 2015. Towards realistic team formation in social networks based on densest subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, 1077–1088. ACM.

    Google Scholar

    Rico R., Alcover C. M. & Tabernero C. D. 2010. Efectividad de los equipos de trabajo, una revision de la ultima decada de investigacion (1999-2009). Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 26, 47–71.

    Google Scholar

    Rochlin I., Aumann Y., Sarne D. & Golosman L. 2016. Efficiency and fairness in team search with self-interested agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30(3), 526–552.

    Google Scholar

    Roe R. A. 2002. What makes a competent psychologist? European Psychologist 7(3), 192–202.

    Google Scholar

    Rokicki M., Zerr S. & Siersdorfer S. 2015. Groupsourcing: team competition designs for crowd-sourcing. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2015, 906–915, May 18–22.

    Google Scholar

    Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F. & Burke, C. S. 2009. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar

    Salas E., Sims D. E. & Burke C. S. 2005. Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555–599.

    Google Scholar

    Schutz W. C. 1958. FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

    Google Scholar

    Spradling M., Goldsmith J., Liu X., Dadi C. & Li Z. 2013. Roles and teams hedonic game. In ADT, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8176, 351–362. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Steiner I. D. 2007. Group process and productivity (social psychological monograph). Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar

    Sukthankar G., Sycara K., Giampapa J. A. & Burnett C. 2009. Communications for agent-based human team support. In Handbook of Research on Multi-agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, Dignum, V. (ed). IGI Global, 285–313.

    Google Scholar

    Terveen L. & McDonald D. W. 2005. Social matching: a framework and research agenda. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12(3), 401–434.

    Google Scholar

    Tetlock P. E., Peterson R. S., McGuire C., Chang S. & Feld P. 1992. Assessing political group dynamics: a test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3), 403–425.

    Google Scholar

    Wax A., DeChurch L. A. & Contractor N. S. 2017. Self-organizing into winning teams: understanding the mechanisms that drive successful collaborations. Small Group Research 48(6), 665–718.

    Google Scholar

    West M. A. 2012a. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons Learned from Organizational Research. Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar

    West M. A. 2012b. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. JohnS Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar

    White K. B. 1984. Mis Project Teams: An Investigation of Cognitive Style Implications. MIS Quarterly 8(2), 95–101.

    Google Scholar

    Wilde D. J. 2009. Teamology: The Construction and Organization of Effective Teams. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Wilde D. J. 2011. Jungs Personality Theory Quantified. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Wilde D. J. 2013. Post-Jungian Personality Theory for Individuals and Teams. SYDROSE LP.

    Google Scholar

    Wildman J. L., Thayer A. L., Rosen M. A., Salas E., Mathieu J. E. & Rayne S. R. 2012. Task types and team-level attributes: synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review 11, 97–129.

    Google Scholar

    Woolley A. W., Aggarwal I. & Malone T. W. 2015. Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(6), 420–424.

    Google Scholar

    Woolley A. W., Chabris C. F, Pentland A., Hashmi N. & Malone T. W. 2010. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science 330(6004), 686–688.

    Google Scholar

    Yildir I. 2005. Group motivation and performance indicators in an online team role playing game. Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar

    Zellmer-Bruhn C. & Gibson M. 2006. Multinational organization context: implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal 494, 501–518.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Ewa Andrejczuk, Rita Berger, Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra, Víctor Marín-Puchades. 2018. The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 33(1), doi: 10.1017/S026988891800019X
    Ewa Andrejczuk, Rita Berger, Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra, Víctor Marín-Puchades. 2018. The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 33(1), doi: 10.1017/S026988891800019X
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(40) PDF downloads(13)

Other Articles By Authors

ORIGINAL RESEARCH   Open Access    

The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology

  • 1.

    IIIA-CSIC

  • 2.

    Passeig de Gràcia

  • 3.

    Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 08035 Barcelona

  • Published online: 08 November 2018
The Knowledge Engineering Review  33,  2018, 33(1)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: Nowadays the composition and formation of effective teams is highly important for both companies to assure their competitiveness and for a wide range of emerging applications exploiting multiagent collaboration (e.g. crowdsourcing, human-agent collaborations). The aim of this article is to provide an integrative perspective on team composition, team formation, and their relationship with team performance. Thus, we review the contributions in both the computer science literature and the organizational psychology literature dealing with these topics. Our purpose is twofold. First, we aim at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the contributions made by these two diverse bodies of research. Second, we aim at identifying cross-fertilization opportunities that help both disciplines benefit from one another. Given the volume of existing literature, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, we have preferred to focus on the most significant contributions in both fields together with recent contributions that break new ground to spur innovative research.

    HTML

    Acknowledgments

    • This work is supported by projects CollectiveMind (funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, under grant number TEC2013-49430- EXP), Collectiveware (TIN2015-66863-C2-1-R MINECO/ FEDER), 2017 SGR 172, and MILESS (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) TIN2013-45039-P Financed by FEDER. The first author is supported by an Industrial PhD scholarship from the Generalitat de Catalunya (DI-060).

    • Notice though that the authors make the strong assumption that there is a known rank of the best actions to take at any time.

    • Teamwork preferences refer to team members preferences on other team members to work with.

    Rights and permissions
    • © Cambridge University Press, 2018 2018Cambridge University Press
References (103)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Ewa Andrejczuk, Rita Berger, Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra, Víctor Marín-Puchades. 2018. The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 33(1), doi: 10.1017/S026988891800019X
    Ewa Andrejczuk, Rita Berger, Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra, Víctor Marín-Puchades. 2018. The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology. The Knowledge Engineering Review 33(1), doi: 10.1017/S026988891800019X
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return