Sequential interdependence
Ambos and Schegelmilch (2007) have laid their focus on the effects of interdependence levels and respective control mechanisms like “centralization, formalization and socialization” and found out that with an expanding degree of interdependence the use of these measures were also growing.
The results showed that the growing innovation of a product and process scope needed more interactive management instruments. Adler’s (1995) main research has been focusing on how coordination exigencies of interdependences differ over the time of a product development project’s lifecycle. īesides the work of Thompson (1967), many scholar’s research has been investigating the value of “management control” processes to complement synergies of teams and business units. In contrary, variance inflates interpersonal costs as well as disagreements which will weaken the group efficiency. Typically, harmony in relationships and interaction between group members improves performance. Consequently, elementary theories of the book “Organizations in Action” developed itself into having universal acceptance within the field.Īs the adoption of groups and teams is increasing within organizations it is essential to realize the effect of different types of interdependences on group control mechanisms and results. J.D Thompson’s work "Organizations in Action” is seen as the foundation of characterizing organizational groups and has been inspirational for scholars studying the organizational design field. 4 Coordinating Interdependence in Cross-Functional Project Teams.3 Pooled, Sequential & Reciprocal Interdependecies According to J.D.Thompson.Last but not least, the final chapter of the article will emphasize the respective limitations of the construct and provide the reader with alternative concepts which were proposed in opposition to Thomspon’s work.
In addition, the article will outline the need of differing coordination methods for varying interdependency types based on the intensity levels to reduce the uncertainties which arises through complex workflow patterns. Furthermore, it is aimed to highlight the groundwork of the notion constructed by Thompson (1967) in introducing the following concepts: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependence. However, this article aims to illustrate dependencies from an inter-organisational point of view, in which contrasting historic concepts of interdependencies will be reviewed. An additional area of interest for scholars has been external interdependencies.(e.g., buyer-supplier relationships) These relationships indicate specific firm level dependencies where being dependent on another is seen as an integral part and as “boundary spanners” for successful cooperation between companies. Interdependencies were categorized according to the severity of their dependence to one another. The term can be defined as the extent to which groups, business units or teams are interdependent with one another and are essentially dependent upon the action of others for their success. These interlinkages of workflow between groups were conceptualized by Thompson (1967) naming them “ interdependencies”. These resources vary from team to team and can be crucial for the success of the overall performance. These complexities occur due to uncertainties which often is a direct consequence of vacillating resources (e.g., insufficient information flow) streaming throughout the project team.
Large scale projects encompassing various cross functional business units or teams have been characterized through their structural complexity. Although this complexity cannot be fully controlled, project teams can be designed and adapted to coordinate the origins that arise as a consequence of complexity. The way and quality of interactions shape the level of complexity. A project consists of systematic essential features in all levels that interacts with each other.