Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38164260›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Examining the fluidity of innovation teams: a conceptual framework.

Rylee M Linhardt, Eduardo Salas

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supporting fluid teams: a research agenda.Frontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rylee M LinhardtDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
Eduardo SalasDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, United States.
Rice University · US

Funding

Convalescent Plasma to Limit Coronavirus Associated ComplicationsUL1TR003167 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KARP, DANIEL D, MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2019 to 2023
$45.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As innovative endeavors have become more complex and time-intensive, there has become an increasing reliance on expert teams in organizations. Expert innovation teams are comprised of team members with extensive experience and mastery in a particular discipline. These teams utilize fluid membership that expands the available knowledge of the team but creates challenges for effective teamwork. We argue that the mechanism for creating an enduring impact and developing a product to fruition requires the cognitive and social integration of fluid team members. This article focuses on how teams effectively integrate knowledge with diverse, and possibly fluid, team members and how teams can organize knowledge through planning and reflection to implement the idea successfully. Knowledge integration and team reflexivity are considered in tandem to emphasize the multi-faceted nature of generating and implementing innovative solutions and the conflicting teamwork processes that hinder innovative efforts. To understand how these competing teamwork processes required for successful innovation interact, we developed a framework that considers resilience as the factor that elicits team creative performance. In doing so, we discuss how innovation teams build resilience over time and how creative failure can lead to greater levels of innovation.

Indexed as

fluid teamsknowledge integrationmutual trustteam innovationteam reflexivityteam resilience

Identifiers

PMID38164260
PMCPMC10757976
OpenAlexW4389916212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.