Team creativity in information system development: An
empirical analysis
Abstract
The creative work done for information systems development (ISD) is similar
to/practically the same as knowledge sharing. Creativity is essential in successful ISD.
Although research has highlighted many factors that influence individual creativity,
little has been said about how team-level creativity is determined. ISD teams may
exhibit creativity in the interaction of the members. Knowledge sharing is fundamental
to the development of any complex information system. Since creative ISD requires
teams to share in each other’s knowledge, knowledge sharing becomes an important
determinant in team creativity. The complexity of an information system development
project is a moderating variable in the present model/study. Based on a sample of 52
ISD teams, direct and moderated relationships between knowledge sharing and team
creativity were tested. The results indicated that task-centric, structure-centric and
human-centric knowledge sharing have a direct effect on team creativity. Furthermore,
it appears that the complexity of the ISD project has a significant effect on the
relationship between structure-centric and human-centric knowledge sharing.
Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing, Team Creativity, Information Systems Development
Project Complexity
1. Introduction
Information systems development (ISD) is a complex activity. This complexity is
magnified by the continuous changes in user requirements due to changing
organizational needs because of the ever-changing, competitive external environment.
ISD is typically executed in a project-management approach. In today’s competitive,
fast-paced environment, many projects are increasingly relying on team members to
generate creative solutions to ISD problems. Creativity is, therefore, becoming essential
in the non-routine work of project teams in ISD settings. Modern ISD projects are often
complex, risky, and under time restrictions because not only technological issues need
to be taken into consideration, but also organizational factors, necessitating increased
attention to knowledge sharing. That is, for creativity, ISD team members need to share
knowledge amongst each other. In this paper, ISD refers to the analysis, design, and
implementation of IS applications/systems to support business activities in an
organizational context. ISD teams were targeted for this study, since they continue to
disappoint and fail at an alarming rate, in spite of great gains in technology,
programming tools, methodology and management technique (Lyytinen & Robey,
1999).
Since the importance of knowledge in the ISD process is widely recognized in
prior research(Tiwana & Mclean, 2005), and knowledge can only be created through
interaction between specialists with varying backgrounds of expertise, the cement of
ISD activities is knowledge sharing. Previous research (Lyytinen & Robey, 1999)
1
describes the project situation in which multiple stakeholders with widely diverse
worldviews and objectives must work together to construct new perspectives for work
activity, values, processes and methods. Much knowledge has been shared in ISD
projects for software development. According to Robillard (1999), ISD is
knowledge-intensive. Knowledge can only be created when the existing knowledge base
is disseminated via interaction between specialists with varying areas of expertise
(DeMeyer, 1985; Moenaert et al., 2000). It, therefore, comes as no surprise that
knowledge sharing has been occupying an important position in ISD research. Since the
creativity involved in an ISD task requires a team to combine and integrate knowledge
from different ISD team members, knowledge sharing is an important determinant in
ISD team creativity. The literature on ISD and creativity offers various, quite different,
directions. Interestingly, however, although creative work is considered to be closely
related and reliant on knowledge sharing, the literature on ISD and creativity does not
seem to draw much on the knowledge management literature. The creative performance
required of ISD teams is driven by the knowledge sharing of the teams.
ISD teams are information processing units; like individuals, teams process
information by encoding, storing, and retrieving it (Brauner & Scholl, 2000). That is, in
ISD teams, team members interact directly to share their diverse knowledge and skills.
Through effective knowledge sharing, team members exchange information and create
new knowledge and insight. The creative performance of ISD teams is therefore largely
shaped by knowledge sharing among team members (Leenders, Kratzer, & van Engelen,
2003). Given the role that intra-team interaction plays in the creation, dissemination,
and combination of knowledge, knowledge sharing largely governs the creativity of this
process in a team (Allen, 197l, 1977; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Leenders et al., 2002).
However, despite the fact that teams play a critical role in fostering creativity has long
been established, the question of how to configure put such a team together remains an
issue in any information systems development. Past research has mainly been done on
the creativity of the individual (Tiwana & Mclean, 2005); not much is known about the
structures that foster the creativity of ISD teams. Research on the social context
necessary for fostering creativity in ISD teams is rare (Leenders, et al., 2003). Focusing
on analysis at team level, aspects of knowledge sharing and how it influences creativity
in ISD teams, was investigated. As little is known about the factors that determine the
creativity of ISD teams, this study investigated how modes of knowledge sharing within
ISD teams affect creativity within the team.
Creativity is recognized as an important element of ISD. Given the increasing use
of teams in ISD to foster creativity, most studies fail to address the empirical
relationship between knowledge sharing and team creativity. Furthermore, little
research has examined the specific role project complexity plays in the functioning of
a team (McComb, et al., 2007). Therefore, this study set out to explore the relationship
between knowledge sharing and team creativity. The moderating effects of ISDP
complexity was also taken into consideration. In short, gaps in the existing literature
prevent us from answering the basic question of how knowledge sharing in an ISD
team affects team creativity. In the present study, two research questions were
addressed:
1. How does knowledge sharing of team members influence team creativity?
2. How does the ISDP complexity moderate the relationships between knowledge
sharing and team creativity?
2
The remainder of this paper is organized into four sections: In Section 2, six
hypotheses regarding the effect of the knowledge sharing on team creativity are
presented. In Section 3, empirical tests of these hypotheses on a sample of 52 ISD teams
are presented. The section covers the empirical parts of the study, including the method
of data collection, the development of the measures, the analysis, and a brief discussion
of the results. In the Section 4, several implications of the empirical findings on how
creative ISD teams with varying modes of knowledge sharing can be managed and
designed are discussed. Finally, in Section 5, further research directions are mentioned.
2. Constructs and hypotheses
2.1 Team creativity
Creativity in ISD project teams plays a bridging role for linking individual
creativity and organizational creativity. Project teams are often used by organizations in
order to generate creative ideas, and transfer/convert newly created ideas into useful
technology, products, or services (Thamhain, 2003). There are many views of creativity.
Amabile (1988) argues that creativity is exhibited when a product or service is
generated that is both novel and useful with respected to the firm. Woodman et al. (1993)
contend that creativity refers to the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service,
idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system.
King & Anderson (1990) proposed that creativity at the team level explicitly
incorporates interpersonal discussion among team members.
The task of an ISD project team is complicated and multi-faceted, and a standard
for evaluating the team’s creativity is a complex and largely unresolved issue. Also, ISD
takes time, rather than being performed at one particular point in time. Most ISD studies
stress the communication (Cramton, 2001; Kraut, 1995) involved in team members’
knowledge sharing about the task and the team. ?? In addition, team activity is
inherently a social process that builds on and involves all team member’s creativity
during a project. ?? Therefore, in this study, based on prior research, team creativity has
been defined as the degree to which a project team’s processes are novel in the context
of the project’s objectives (Drazin et al., 1999).
2.2 Knowledge sharing
Knowledge management becomes a key factor in gaining and sustaining a
competitive advantage. Knowledge management is the process of capturing, storing,
sharing, and using knowledge. In this, a major management problem is how to change
individual knowledgecinto team knowledge, since team knowledge is inherently created
and resides with individuals (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Another problem is integrating
and managing team knowledge so that it results in successful performance. Since team
knowledge is usually distributed within a team and information systems development
generally require manifold/multi-faceted knowledge, teams need to integrate this
knowledge to develop information systems (Brown & Duguid, 1998).
Knowledge sharing (KS) is a central issue in ISD projects. During the execution of
ISD project tasks, information or knowledge sharing is essential (Parolia et al., 2007).
Although the mix of appropriate capabilities within the team is quite important, it is
unlikely that any one particular team member will have all relevant expertise,
knowledge and information necessary to design the software. Therefore, team members
3
need to network with each other in order to exchange knowledge and information.
Knowledge sharing in ISD teams is a complex social process since it involves a
combination and integration of a variety of input and knowledge from multiple and
interdependent team members. The process of networking encompasses social
interaction and task/structure systems that facilitate the actions of team members in
order to develop information systems. Here, knowledge sharing is defined as the
transfer or dissemination of knowledge from one team member to another. Knowledge
sharing can be classified into three categories: human-centric, task-centric or
structure-centric. The KS for Human-centric is usually implemented through the
interpersonal interaction of team members. In task-centric KS, the knowledge is
provided by team members who communicate directly with other members on the
project task domain. And in structure-centric KS, it refers to the notifying of a team’s
norms and rules through/by team members.
2.3 Information systems development project complexity
Information systems development refers to the analysis, design and
implementation of IS applications/systems to support business activities in an
organizational context. Different types of projects demonstrate different contingency
characteristics that require different management approaches. ISDPs typically involve a
number of organizational and technological elements including the existing systems,
infrastructure, new technology, user units, stakeholders, the project team, vendors, and
external service providers. Based on a review of the project complexity literature,
Baccarini (1996) defines project complexity in terms of the number of varied elements
and the interdependency between those elements. By integrating the dimensions
proposed by prior research, Xia & Lee (2005) define ISDP complexity as the ISDP’s
state of consisting of many varied organizational and technological elements that are
interrelated and change over time. The organizational environment includes changes in
user information needs, business processes, and organizational structures. The
technological elements include technology platform, software environment, data
processing requirements, and other integrated systems.
2.4 Relationship between knowledge sharing and team creativity
Teams are essential in projects for tackling complex work which requires a variety
of knowledge and skills, stimulating creativity. According to Keller (1994), due to the
constant changes inherent in ISD tasks (e.g., team members facing new issues and
problems, need to reassign tasks, etc.), it is necessary for team members to share
knowledge to a high degree to deal with these frequent changes. Team members need to
interact regularly to share information and knowledge about how to execute the ISD
task, to find out about what other team members are facing, to deal with disruptions,
and ultimately, to ensure that the project is on track. Teams are information processing
units- they process information: they encode, store, and retrieve it (Brauner & Scholl,
2000). Knowledge sharing among its members should make members become more
productive in terms of their creativity. Creativity does not happen inside people’s head,
but in knowledge sharing. Creativity and knowledge are closely linked (Edmonds &
Candy, 2002).
ISD projects face peculiar challenges, such as requirement uncertainty and change
in technological and organizational environment. These problems demand effective
knowledge sharing mechanisms. In fact, the effectiveness of knowledge sharing is a
critical success factor for ISD projects. An increased level of knowledge sharing makes
4
the ideas increasingly likely. Therefore, knowledge sharing is expected to lead to more
and better new ideas. ISD requires both the generation of new knowledge and solutions
and novel combinations of existing knowledge and solution-processes are most
effectively supported by combining and integrating existing but varying pools of
knowledge and ideas. In other words, ISD team creativity requires the team to combine
and integrate knowledge from multiple ISD team members. Through effective
knowledge sharing of the various team members, ISD teams may lead to increased
novelty of creativity.
Individual knowledge is necessary in a software team, however, it is not sufficient.
Large-scale software projects require the sharing of knowledge from multiple technical
and functional domains by team members (Espinosa et al., 2007). In complex ISD, there
is an equivocality of information, goal, and role (Parolia et al., 2007). To deal with this,
knowledge sharing is a significant factor in the ISD process. Hence, it is very important
that team members exchange task-related information or knowledge. Based on this, the
following hypothesis:
H1: Task-centric KS mode is positively related to team creativity.
The team involved in an ISD project as a whole as well as each individual member
need to have a clearly articulated purpose. The ISD team needs to agree on common
work structure with a clear sub-goal for each team member. Team members must
understand this and how they contribute to the objectives of the team. A lack of
structure-related knowledge sharing within the team leads to duplicated efforts or
missing responsibility for certain activities in the team process and thus impedes the
team’s ability to complete its project within certain constraints (Hoegl et al., 2003).
Senge (1990) states that “building a shared vision” creates tension that leads to learning.
In the ISD context, team members need to understand a team’s objective for teamwork.
Hutt et al. (1995) concur that a fundamental task for team members is to create a clear
map with which team members can identify. Therefore, clarity of objectives will reduce
the degree of role uncertainty and enhance the development creativity. Thus:
H2: Structure-centric KS mode is positively related to team creativity.
Social interaction may also influence the ideas that team members generate in a
team setting. Interpersonal communication provides a means for team members to
interact and learn. As team members work together, they establish structures or
traditions that constrain how they act by defining “normal” and “unacceptable” behavior.
These traditions influence how team members work together.
H3: Human-centric KS mode is positively related to team creativity.
2.5 ISDP complexity as a moderator
Knowledge sharing of team members provides important access of knowledge, its
impact on team creativity may depend on the complexity of the ISDP. According to
Stewart & Barrick (2000) and Hoegl, et al.(2003), high levels of team collaboration (i.e.,
knowledge sharing) are not necessarily associated with increased team creativity, as this
relationship may be influenced by ISDP complexity such as varied organizational and
technological elements that are interrelated and change over time. That is, complexity of
an information systems development project is also likely to influence the effect of
knowledge sharing on team creativity.
5
As the relationship seems common to all team projects, it can be argued that
knowledge sharing is more important in cases of high complexity, where the novelty
and uncertainty of the ISD make the knowledge sharing more critical due to unforeseen
and rapidly changing project environment. Given the above-described statements from
literature, high level knowledge sharing is not necessarily always better, but the
assumed positive relationship between knowledge sharing and team creativity depends
on the complexity of the IS project at hand.
The interaction between knowledge sharing and ISDP complexity is critical for
team creativity. For projects that pose moderate levels of the complexity to the team,
which can be the case when the ISD projects involve the design and development of an
entirely new software solution, knowledge sharing will have more influence on team
creativity than for ISD projects involving the upgrading or customizing of existing
software. For instance, in the instance of a complex project, knowledge sharing will
allow the team to adjust their approach to make tradeoffs among competing alternatives
or experiment with alternative ways to minimize complexity. While these results
highlight the importance of knowledge sharing under conditions of complexity, logic
would suggest that team members facing multiple alternatives that must be considered
would also benefit from knowledge sharing. Therefore, knowledge sharing is expected
to improve team creativity, especially under highly complex circumstances. According
to the above, the following:
H4: Task-centric KS mode is more positively related to team creativity when the
project is highly/very complex than when less complex.
H5: Structure-centric KS mode is more positively related to team creativity when
the project is highly/very complex than when less complex.
H6: Human-centric KS mode is more positively related to team creativity when the
project is highly/very complex than when less complex.
3. Methods
3.1 Research model
The objective of this study was to understand the influence of ISDP complexity on
team creativity regarding knowledge sharing /as far as knowledge sharing is concerned
in ISD teams. The basic model studied the relationship between knowledge sharing and
team creativity. The effects of ISDP complexity on this relationship were explored.
What was studied, was how three different types of knowledge sharing, namely
task-centric, structure-centric and human-centric KS, are linked to team creativity in the
light of ISDP complexity. Fig. 1 depicts the conceptual framework.
6
ISDP complexity
knowledge sharing
task-centric KS
structure-centric KS
team creativity
human-centric KS
Figure 1 Research Model
3.2 Measures
After developing the research model, research constructs were
operationalized/put into operation based on related studies. For the questionnaires, a
multiple-items method was used and each item was based on a seven point Likert
scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Team Creativity, the dependent measure of this research, involves the execution
of creative acts (Satzinger et al., 1999). A three-item scale that assesses the degree to
which a project team’s processes are novel in the context of the project’s objectives
was used to measure the creativity of teams by reviewing the previous work
(Dechant & Marsick, 1993; Denison et al., 1996; Chen, 2006).
Knowledge sharing, the independent variable in the research model, refers to the
activities of transferring or disseminating knowledge from one team member to
another. During the ISD, team members have to share their task input (e.g.,
information, knowledge, resource) in order to complete work successfully. A
14-item scale is used to measure knowledge sharing of team members based on
descriptions and measures of related constructs in the literature (Hoegl &
Parboteeah, 2007). The KS dimensions of task-centric, structure-centric and
human-centric were adopted. The task-centric KS mode is relevant for solving
problems and completing projects in a specific task domain. The structure-centric
KS mode focuses on the shared team objective, procedures and specifications. The
human-centric KS mode is defined as ‘interpersonal relationship oriented’ and
acquired by informal social networking.
Information systems development project complexity, the moderating variable in
the research model, refers to the ISDP’s state of consisting of many varied
organizational and technological elements that are interrelated and change over time.
A 15-item scale is used to measure the complexity of an information systems
development project based on the definition of ISDP complexity proposed by Xia &
Lee (2005).
7
3.3 Sample
The data consisted of 109 team members in 52 ISD teams, gathered in 40
Taiwanese companies that develop software. The data were collected by distributing
questionnaires. In addition, team members were asked several questions regarding their
background and team attribute. The average age of the team members was 30, and they
were mostly male (76.0%). The main fields of specialization were programming
(59.6%), system design (19.3%), requirement analysis (8.3%) and system testing (7.3%).
Most had the required education (51.4%) or had a master degree (45.0%). On average,
data from five members of each team were collected and project duration was about ten
months. Approximately 56% of the participants had an engineering background, and the
remaining participants were from a business management background.
4. Data analysis and results
4.1 Measurement Analysis
Content validity of the survey instrument was established through the adoption of
validated instruments by other researchers in the literature. Since each factor was
measured by multi-item constructs, item and factor analysis were performed to validate
the scale. Table 1 summarizes the number of items and the results of the reliability and
validity tests.
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated in order to assess the
reliability of all constructs. Table 1 presents the Cronbach’s alpha level of all the
variables. The values ranged from 0.84 (for human-centric KS) to 0.91 (for task-centric
KS).
The measurement model for knowledge sharing was analyzed using a factor
analysis with a Varimax rotation (see Table 1). The three factors that emerged explained
70.4% of the total variance and replicated the planned scales. Average communality was
0.70 which is well above the 0.6 level recommended for samples of this size, and thus
supports the three factor solution.
Table 1
Factor Analysis for Knowledge Sharing
Item
Reliability
Task-centric KS
I provide the ideas to help team members with work problems.
When I’ve learned something new, I see to it that team members can learn it as well.
I enjoy exchanging task-related knowledge and experience with team members.
I like telling team members what I know when they ask me about it.
I like demonstrating difficult procedures to team members.
I would share the right method with team members when they work in ineffective ways.
0.91
I would give team members the necessary information when they are unfamiliar with the work method and process.
Structure-centric KS
I like telling team members the norms/principles when they do not know them.
I would explain when team members do not understand.
I like giving team members the specifications when they do not know them.
Human-centric KS
I would share with team members regarding the work conditions.
I discuss with team members the treatment of something.
I provide suggestions to team members when they are in trouble.
I remind team members when their behavior is not in line/acceptable ??
8
0.88
0.84
Convergent
Validity
Discriminant
Validity
0.77
0.71
0.74
0.66
0.75
0.69
0.70
0.84
0.80
0.79
0.72
0.66
0.62
0.56
0.78
0.75
0.76
0.87
0.84
0.79
0.72
0.69
0.63
0.62
0.86
0.84
0.77
0.76
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the sample data. The hypotheses were
tested with the/a hierarchical regression analysis, the results of which are presented in
Table 3. The correlations and collinearity statistics suggest that all required regressions
could be run.
Table 2
Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa
Variable
1. task-centric KS
2. structure-centric KS
3. human-centric KS
4. ISDP complexity
5. team creativity
a
Mean
5.22
5.54
4.34
4.69
5.11
S.D.
0.70
0.78
0.89
0.74
0.70
1
2
3
4
0.68**
0.27**
-0.07
-0.04
0.23*
-0.13
0.19
0.20*
0.23*
0.48**
N=52 teams, *p<0.05, ** p<0.01
4.2 Hypothesis and Model Testing
Hypotheses 1 through 3 propose positive relationships of task-centric,
structure-centric, and human-centric KS with team creativity. Table 3 shows the results
of hierarchical regression analyses estimating the effects of knowledge sharing and
ISDP complexity on team creativity. Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 predict direct effects of
knowledge sharing on team creativity. As shown in table 3, the coefficient for
task-centric KS mode is negative and with a significant influence (p<0.01) on team
creativity, indicating that a team with more task-centric knowledge sharing is likely to
be less creative. Hence, hypothesis 1 is not confirmed. Hypothesis 2 states that a team
sharing more structure-centric knowledge is likely to be more creative. As shown in
table 3, the coefficient for structure-centric knowledge sharing is positive and
significant in team creativity (p<0.01), indicating that structure-centric knowledge
sharing of team members contributes to its team creativity. Hypothesis 3 states that a
team sharing more human-centric knowledge is likely to be more creative. As shown in
table 3, the coefficient for human-centric KS mode is positive and significant (p<0.05)
on team creativity, indicating that human-centric knowledge sharing of team members
contributes to its team creativity. Hence, these regression analyses support hypotheses 2
and 3.
Hypotheses 4 through 6 state that ISDP complexity influences/determines the
relationships between KS and team creativity. To test these hypotheses, knowledge
sharing and ISDP complexity were multiplied and the multiplicative interaction items
were entered into the regression. As table 3 shows, ISDP complexity significantly
positively influences the relationships of structure-centric and human-centric KS with
regard to team creativity, thus lending support to hypotheses 5 and 6. However, the
coefficient of the interaction was not significant, indicating that the effect of task-centric
KS mode on team creativity is not dependent on ISDP complexity. Hence, hypothesis 4
is not supported.
To better explain the form of interactions reported in the above hierarchical
regression analysis, the interaction effects were plotted in the graphs shown in Figure 2,
showing the nature of the interaction effects in terms of the relationships between
structure-centric/human-centric KS and team creativity for high levels (above the
9
median) of ISDP complexity and low levels (at or below the median). The graphs
document that for teams with high or low ISDP complexity, the relationships between
structure-centric/human-centric knowledge sharing and team creativity were positive.
Figure 2 shows that, when structure-centric knowledge sharing was facilitated,
team creativity was higher for higher ISDP complexity, and lower for lower ISDP
complexity. And further, when human-centric knowledge sharing of team members was
facilitated, team creativity was higher for higher ISDP complexity, and lower for lower
ISDP complexity. In other words, the results suggested that high ISDP complexity
generated higher team creativity with structure-centric or human-centric KS.
Table 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Effects of Knowledge Sharing and ISDP Complexity
Team creativity
Variable
Task-centric KS
Structure-centric KS
Human-centric KS
1
2
***
-0.370
0.383***
0.243**
ISDP Complexity
3
***
-0.362
0.470***
0.123
-1.306**
1.945***
0.991*
0.487***
1.783***
Task-centric* ISDP Complexity
Structure-centric* ISDP Complexity
Human-centric* ISDP Complexity
R2
1.371
2.018***
1.266*
0.143
2
△R
0.363
0.426
0.220
0.063
35.837***
△F
*** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1
10
3.692**
Figure 2 Interaction Results
11
5. Discussion and conclusion
What would facilitate the acquisition of useful knowledge in a team in order to
enhance its creativity? This research suggests that knowledge sharing is critical in
meeting the need for enhanced creativity. With software development as a complex
socio-technical activity, and its tasks often exacerbated by incomplete user requirements
and changing environmental demands, it is clear that the strength of the project team
lies in its creativity in solving project problems through the efforts of all the team
members. This research demonstrated that task-centric, structure-centric and
human-centric KS significantly affected team creativity. The results suggest that high
structure-centric or human-centric knowledge sharing is associated with improved team
creativity. Surprisingly, however, the task-centric knowledge sharing has significant
negative effects on team creativity. Additionally, this research also shows that the
interaction between knowledge sharing and ISDP complexity significantly affects team
creativity. This finding is interesting, given that previous research has focused on the
direct effect of knowledge sharing in explaining team performance only, without
addressing whether the effect might be dependent on the ISDP complexity. In this study,
it was found that the ISDP complexity played an important moderating role between
knowledge sharing and team creativity.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Knowledge sharing can be exercised in structure-centric, human-centric and
task-centric modes. It follows from what has been said that structure-centric and
human-centric knowledge sharing amongst team members provides a mechanism for
enhancing team creativity, because it leads team members to access, explore, and use
diverse information from related knowledge contexts associated with the ISD project. In
other words, knowledge sharing is more useful for team creativity if they are
structure-centric or human-centric. This shows that knowledge and ideas are shared and
common meaning are developed through structure-centric and human-centric
interactions. A lack of structure-centric knowledge sharing with the team leads to
duplicated efforts or missed responsibility for certain activities during the ISD process
impeding the team’s ability to complete its project within certain constraints. And then,
the lack of the human element makes it harder to develop a set of steps to deal with new
issues. Thus, a high level of structure-centric or human-centric knowledge sharing
provides opportunities for team members to deal with uncertainty by allowing them not
only to understand team operation to keep ISD project on track, but also to regularly
discuss problems.
Contrary to the predictions, it was found that there is a negative relationship
between the task-centric KS mode and team creativity. However, there seem to be
plausible explanations. One explanation is that, because of the nature of the ISD
projects in this sample, it was generally more difficult to rely on past experience to
solve ill-defined, poorly structured or new problems. As argued earlier, ISD projects
inevitably present uncertain situations. In contrast, routine projects involve more
certainty and problems can be dealt with based on past experience. Thus, in routine
projects, it is more useful to consult task-related knowledge additively to ensure that the
project, what needs to get done, and how it needs to get done are much clearer.
12
However, merely possessing task-centric knowledge in ISD projects may not be very
helpful. According to Cooper (2000), ISD largely consists of heuristic tasks- that is,
tasks that do not have clear and readily identifiable paths to the solution. Too much
pasted task-specific knowledge and experience (e.g., work processes, work methods,
work specifications) might then hinder team members’ creative thinking and lead to low
team creativity. In other words, strong task-centric knowledge sharing is likely to limit
the thinking of task-related knowledge as such team processes tend to create
convergence, thus impeding the divergent thinking necessary to find novel solutions to
task problems facing the team.
As Figure 2 illustrates, the significant results for the moderating effect of ISDP
complexity on the relationship between structure-centric/human-centric KS and team
creativity imply that ISDP complexity is important to understand how team creativity is
enhanced through structure-centric/human-centric knowledge sharing by team members
in ISD projects. This suggests that the project complexity of ISD is instrumental in
utilizing structure-centric/human-centric knowledge sharing and directing team process
toward the critical performance of team creativity. Innovative tasks, such as the design
and development of new software, as Daft & Lengel (1986) and Sicotte & Langley
(2000) suppose, are characterized by high levels of ambiguity, uncertainty, and
equivocality. It seems reasonable to suppose that more complexity of ISDP necessitates
team members to take new perspectives on problems, team creativity increase as well.
Under complexity of ISD project conditions, greater structure-centric/human-centric
knowledge sharing with team members may help achieve a common understanding of
the team and overcome any complexity they encounter in order to develop solutions to
novel problems and to ensure that the project stays on track.
5.2 Practical implications
As for the practical implications of these findings, this study has shown the
importance of knowledge sharing in ISD settings: it is clear that to achieve high team
creativity structure-centric and human-centric knowledge need to be shared; moreover,
the study also demonstrates the importance of the ISDP complexity as a facilitator of
the relationship between knowledge sharing and team creativity. Because a project
environment based on complexity, uncertainty and change stimulates greater KS in
teams, it will enhance team creativity. The findings of this research can also help team
managers to understand the importance of such soft elements as knowledge sharing and
project environment. Thus, it implies that knowledge sharing is more important in cases
of highly complex ISD, where the novelty and uncertainty of the task make interaction
more critical due to unforeseen and rapidly changing technology/organization
environments.
5.3 Limitations and future research
A few limitations of this study along with questions for future research should be
noted. First, in order to capture team members’ perceptions of KS, ISDP complexity
and team creativity, there variables were measured using subjects’ self-reporting, thus
raising the problem of common method variance. Further research may attempt to
include multilevel variables into the analyses. Secondly, all factors are measures of a
13
single moment in time. In future research, longitudinal investigations would be
desirable. Finally, the ISD team members were chosen for the sample, which might
seem to raise the issue of generalizability. Although we do believe that the current
sample was appropriate for testing the model, encourage future researchers should test
this model with other samples (e.g., designing and developing manufactured products).
14