Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forming teams: an analytical approach

  • Published:
IIE Transactions

Abstract

The selection of multi-functional teams is a key issue in problem solving. Currently there are no papers in the literature that discuss analytical approaches to forming teams. Furthermore, no comprehensive model exists to prioritize team membership based on customer requirements or product characteristics. To deal with the underlying complexities of the team selection process, a methodology for team formation is developed. The methodology is based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach and the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method. A QFD planning matrix is used to organize the factors considered in the team selection. The importance measure for each team member is determined with the AHP approach. A mathematical programming model is developed to determine the composition of a team. The methodology developed in this paper is tested by the selection of teams in concurrent engineering. A detailed discussion of the model implementation and how to reduce the number of comparisons in the AHP process is presented. Possible modifications of the model to include “soft factors”, i.e., leadership, morale, personalities of group members, group values and so on are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark, K.B., Chew, W.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1992) Product development process. Technical Report, Harvard Business School, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carter, Dff. and Baker, B.S. (1992) Concurrent Engineering: The Product Development Environment for the 1990s, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A. and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992) Toward an understanding of team performance and training, in Team: Their Training and Performance, Swezey, W. and Salas, E. (eds), Norwood, Ablex, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belson, D. (1994) Concurrent engineering, in Handbook of Design, Manufacturing, and Automation, Dorf, R.D. and Kusiak, A. (eds), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Diffrentiation and Integration. Boston, Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Askin, R.G. and Sodhi, M. (1994) Organization of teams in concurrent engineering, in Handbook of Design, Manufacturing, and Automation, Dorf, R.D. and Kusiak, A. (eds), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Reddy, Y.V., Srinivas, K., Jagannathan, V. and Karinthi, R. (1993) Computer support for concurrent engineering. Computer, 1 (1), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Klein, M. (1993) Capturing design rationale in concurrent engineering teams. Computer, January, 39–47.

  9. Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (1990) Progress in small group research, in Annual Review Psychology, Vol. 41, Rosenzweig, M.R. and Porter, L.W. (eds), pp. 585–634.

  10. Armstrong, Jr., J.B. (1990) Distributed decision making for command and control of complex dynamic systems. Technical Report CHMSR–90–1, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hauptman, O. and Hirji, K.K. (1996) The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: an empirical study of cross-functional teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43 (2), 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kleinman, D.L., Luh, P.B., Pattipati, K.R. and Serfati, D. (1992), Mathematical models of team distributed decision making, in Team: Their Training and Performance, Swezey, W. and Salas, E. (eds), Norwood, Ablex, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luh, P.B., Pattipati, K.R. and Kleinman, D.L. (1990) Task and resource coordination in human teams, in Proceedings 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Control, Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 116–120.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levis, A.H. (1988) Human organizations as distributed intelligence systems, in Proceedings IFAC/IMACS International Symposium on Distributed Intelligent Systems, Springer, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Coovert, M.D., Salas, E. and Craiger, J.P. (1990) Understanding team performance measures: application of Petri nets, in Proceedings 1990 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE, New York, pp. 214–217.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Keller, R.T., Julian, S.D. and Kedia, B.L. (1996) A multinational study of work climate, job satisfaction, and productivity of R & D teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42 (1), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dyer, J.C. (1984) Team research and team training: state-of-the-art review, in Human Factors Review, Muckler, F. A. (ed), Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, CA, pp. 285–323.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Modrick, J.A. (1986) Team performance and training, in Human Productivity Enhancement: Training and Human Factors in Systems Design, Vol. 1, Zeidner, J. (ed), Praeger, New York, NY. pp. 130–166.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rouse, W.B., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (1992) The role of mental models in team performance in complex models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22 (6), 1296–1308.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rouse, W.B., Hammer, J.M. and Lewis, C.M. (1989) On capturing human skills and knowledge: algorithmic approaches to model identification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 19 (3), 558–572.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell, G. (1990) The theory and training of mental models. Technical Report Naval Training andSystems Center, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kieras, Dff. (1988) What mental models should be taught: choosing instructional content for complex engineered systems. in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lessons Learned, Psotka, J., Massey, L.D. and Mutter, S.A. (eds), Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 85–111.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shoemaker, P.J. and Ward, C.C. (1982) An experimental comparison of diffrent approaches to determining weights in additivity utility models. Management Science, 28 (2), 128–196.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 63–73.

  25. Saaty, T.L. (1987) Concepts, theory, and techniques: rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytical hierarchy process. Decision Sciences, 18, 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Saaty, T.L. (1981) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Saaty, T.L. (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytical hierarchy process. Management Science, 32 (7), 841–855.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harker, P.T. and Vargas, L.G. (1987) Theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytical hierarchy process. Management Science, 33 (11), 1383–1403.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vargas, L.G. (1990) An overview of the analytical hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zahedi, F. (1986) The analytical hierarchy process - a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16 (4), 96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Korpela, J. and Tuominen, M. (1996) Benchmarking logistics performance with an application of the analytical hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43 (3), 323–333.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Armacost, R.L., Componation, P.J., Mullens, M.A. and Swart, W.W. (1994) An AHP framework for prioritizing customer requirements in QFD: an industrial housing application. IIE Transactions, 26 (4), 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Madu, C.N. and Georgatzas, N.C. (1991) Strategic thrust of manufacturing automation decision: a conceptual framework. IIE Transactions, 23 (2), 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Aczel, J. and Saaty, T.L. (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27 (1), 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saaty, T.L. (1982) Decision Making for Leaders, Lifetime Learning, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dyer, R.F. and Forman, E.H. (1992) Group decision support with the analytical hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8, 99–124.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Golden, B.L., Wasil, E.A. and Harker, P.T. (1989) The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Islei, G., Lockett, G., Cox, B. and Stratford, M. (1991) A decision support system using judgmental modeling: A case of R & D in the pharmaceutical industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 202–209.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Harker, P.T. (1987) Alternative modes of questioning in the analytical hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9 (3–5), 353–360.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Harker, P.T. (1987) Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytical hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9 (11), 837–848.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Millet, I. and Harker, P.T. (1990) Globally effctive questioning in the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (1984) Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242-1527, USA

    ARMEN Zzkarian & ANDREW Kusiak

Authors
  1. ARMEN Zzkarian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. ANDREW Kusiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zzkarian, A., Kusiak, A. Forming teams: an analytical approach. IIE Transactions 31, 85–97 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007580823003

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007580823003

Keywords

Search

Navigation