scholarly journals Student Work Group/Teams: Current Practices In An Engineering And Technology Curriculum Compared To Models Found In Team Development Literature

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Wolter ◽  
Cliff Goodwin
Author(s):  
Hossam Hassan ◽  
Khalifa Al-Jabri

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredits college and university programs in engineering under the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC). The process follows Engineering Criteria (EC) 2000, which focuses on outcomes (what is learned) rather than what is taught. This paper presents an overview of the processes developed by the civil engineering (CE) program at Sultan Qaboos University to satisfy ABET Criteria 2, 3, and 4. The program had a successful accreditation visit in November 2013. Program educational objectives (PEOs) were developed. A review and revision process for PEOs was also developed. ABET student outcomes (SOs) were adopted by the CE program. SOs were broken to outcome elements. Key performance indicators were developed for each outcome element, according to the six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy for cognitive domain. The process used direct indicators from student work as well indirect survey instruments. The program has developed a detailed and systematic approach for assessment of SOs with feedback and follow-up on implementation of actions for continuous improvement. Planning for the next accreditation cycle of SO assessment proved valuable, as the new accreditation committee started executing an already laid out work plan.


2014 ◽  
pp. 1138-1150
Author(s):  
Aileen G. Zaballero ◽  
Hsin-Ling Tsai ◽  
Philip Acheampong

In this broadening landscape of business, corporations are encouraged to develop global leaders. “Changes in workforce demographics resulting from globalization, combined with the rising popularity of team-based management techniques, have resulted in a practical concern with the management of multicultural groups” (Thomas, 1999, p. 242). Organizations are challenged to implement a comprehensive approach to global development that encompasses different cultural perspectives. This chapter proposes to utilize team-based learning within a cross-cultural work-group. The use of a collaborative approach supports the social dimensions of learning and can exhibit greater productivity for individuals. According to Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee (2006) as cited by Schaffer, Lei, and Paulino (2008), “Knowledge exists not only in the heads of learners, but also in the conversations and social relations among collaborators” (p. 144). This chapter will emphasize the importance of collaborative team-based work groups among diverse settings. First, the authors will discuss the factors of diverse teams and identify the stages of group development focusing on Tuckman’s Model. In addition, Gert Hofstede’s cultural dimension will be addressed. Finally, organizational contexts that impact the performance of diverse teams such will be explored.


2002 ◽  
Vol 5 (02) ◽  
pp. 146-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Jonkman ◽  
C.F.M. Bos ◽  
J.N. Breunese ◽  
D.T.K. Morgan ◽  
J.A. Spencer ◽  
...  

Summary On behalf of a group of sponsors consisting of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) and most E&P companies active in Norway, a work group was established to author a report on the best practices and methods in hydrocarbon resource estimation, production and emissions forecasting, uncertainty evaluation, and decision making. The work group is part of Norway's forum for Forecasting and Uncertainty evaluatioN (FUN). Following a detailed data acquisition and interviewing phase used to establish an inventory of the current practice of all sponsors involved, the work group postulated a relationship between a company's practices and its economic performance. A key distinguishing factor between companies is the degree to which probabilistic methods are adopted in integrated multidisciplinary processes aimed at supporting the decision-making process throughout the asset life cycle and portfolio of assets. Companies have been ranked in terms of this degree of integration, and best practices are recommended. In many companies, a gap seems to exist between available and applied technology. Data and (aggregated) information exchange between governments and companies is also discussed. A best practice based on their respective decision-making processes is recommended. Introduction FUN1 was established in 1997 and has 18 member companies, in addition to NPD. The forum is a Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) arena used to determine best practices and methods for hydrocarbon resource and emissions estimation, forecasting uncertainty evaluation, and decision making. It focuses on matters related to forecasting and uncertainty evaluation of future oil and gas production. Its main purpose is to optimize the interplay between the private industry and the national authorities wishing to regulate their national assets. The basic question that began the FUN Best Practices project was whether the accuracy of Norway's historical production forecasts has been disappointing because of erroneous contributions from the companies or because of wrong aggregation by NPD. Which best practices could improve this situation? Whereas reserves form the basis for production, capital expenditures, operating expenditures, and emissions forecasting, the decision-making process in the various companies and national authorities links the various components together. Using the latest guidelines created by SPE, the World Petroleum Congresses (WPC), and the American Assn. Of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)2 for reserves reporting (allowing the use of probabilistic methods), the project concentrated on assessing the potential advantages of probabilistic techniques when used in combination with fully integrated asset management workflow processes. After a discussion of the current practices of the various companies and authorities visited, best practices are formulated in the fields of estimating reserves, production, costs and emissions forecasting, decision making, planning, and communications. The paper concludes with recommendations on how to move from the current practices to the desired best practices. Methodology of the Study The methodology used by the FUN Best Practices Team involved a series of interviews with:The Norwegian Operating Units of the oil companies sponsoring the project to obtain their views on the current practices.The Norwegian authorities.The headquarters of several major oil companies to obtain their views on best practices in production and emissions forecasting and decision making.Government officials in other major oil- or gas-producing countries to learn from their experiences. The interview comments were analyzed, and a set of best practices was formulated. A project currently in progress concentrates on disseminating the best practices through workshops and elearning combined with classical training courses. Current Practices Reserves Estimation. All companies trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) use the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting standards, which are encumbered with anomalies as to changes in (end-year) oil prices, novel contracts (production sharing), and a modification for North Sea fields (by exception). They are difficult to change because such changes would have consequences for financial reporting by means of the (unit of production) depreciation of capital assets by the oil companies. Most companies adhere to the SEC rules for reporting proved reserves as a single, deterministic number. Commonly, however, probabilistic methods are used internally; only recently did a few governments start to ask for probabilistic reserves reporting from the companies. In response, SPE, WPC, and AAPG have formulated guidelines that include the option for probabilistic reserves reporting. The standard adopted by NPD3 relates reserves to their maturity and is, with a few minor modifications, eminently suitable to be linked with business processes, as is done internally by several oil companies. It appears that, for a number of companies, the NPD classification is not too different from the systems used internally, which are indeed linked, in some cases, to a business process. For some companies with simpler classifications, additional work will be required to comply with the NPD standards. In Table 1, the various standard classifications and those used by the companies are compared.


2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 101-120
Author(s):  
Iris A.G.M. Geerts ◽  
Joyce J.P.A. Bierbooms ◽  
Stefan W.M.G. Cloudt

PurposeThis two-part study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on team development by examining the development of self-managing teams (SMTs) in healthcare. Based on an exploration of the team development literature, a perspective on SMT development was created, which suggested that SMTs develop along a non-sequential pattern of three processes–team management, task management and boundary management and improvement–that is largely the result of individual, team, organizational and environmental-level factors.Design/methodology/approachThe perspective on SMT development was assessed in a Dutch mental healthcare organization by conducting 13 observations of primary mental healthcare SMTs as well as 14 retrospective interviews with the self-management process facilitator and advisors of all 100 primary mental healthcare SMTs.FindingsEmpirical results supported the perspective on SMT development. SMTs were found to develop along each of the three defined processes in a variety or possible patterns or simultaneously over time, depending on many of the identified factors and three others. These factors included individual human capital, team member attitudes and perceived workload at the individual level, psychological safety, team turnover, team size, nature of the task and bureaucratic history at the team level, and management style and material and social support at the organizational level.Practical implicationsThis study provides a non-sequential model of SMT development in healthcare, which healthcare providers could use to understand and foster SMTs development. To foster SMT development, it is suggested that cultural change need to be secured alongside with structural change.Originality/valueEven though various team development models have been described in the literature, this study is the first to indicate how SMTs in the healthcare context develop toward effective functioning.


1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Hughes ◽  
William E. Rosenbach ◽  
William H. Clover

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 83-101
Author(s):  
Vladimiras Gražulis

In recent decades teamwork has become not only a  popular topic for public discussion, but also the focus of numerous scientific insights. The abundance of publications on this subject suggests that organizing teamwork has become one of the phenomena of organi‑ zational activity. On the other hand, based on his numerous research, the author of the paper raises the question of whether the concept of teamwork analysed in such publications is studied within the framework of scientific concepts. For instance, some authors believe that the only distinguishing feature of a team is an efficiently working group; the formation of the team is a long‑term process and to achieve this the group needs to undergo several stages of development (Hersey, Blanchard, Tuckman, Jensen, Katzenbach, Smith, Liker, Kasiulis, Barvydienė, Savanavičienė, Šilingienė, Gražulis); other authors use these concepts as synonyms (Boddy, Peiton) and analyse them in the context of formal and informal sta‑ tus. Thus, the concept of effective and ineffective teams has become the additional object of the research. Numerous researchers limit their research to the analysis of functional roles within well‑established teams (Benne, Sheats), at the same time neglecting the impact of personality traits on the activity of the work group. Specialists do not agree on the team size (Manz, Sims, Miller, Stoner et. al.), purpose (Meskon, Katzenbach, Smith, Sakalas et. al.), and periodically arising constraints on the team development and the like. As a result, scholars and practitioners perceive the issues of team work differently, thus they often talk at cross purposes. The author of the paper believes that it is expedient to consider the information collected up to now on the topic of teamwork within the overall context of the development of management science, which at the same time would provide for the development of conceptual theoretical proposals for scientific teamwork models (systems).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document