This thesis describes the development of an instrument for assessing shared understanding in teams. The purpose was to develop an instrument that would be usable, understandable, objective, flexible and self-explanatory. Teams working in naturalistic settings are expected to have a shared understanding concerning common goals and how to achieve these. The problem investigated in this thesis is that current techniques and instruments for assessing shared understanding in teams generally suffer from one or more of the following drawbacks, namely that they are expensive, difficult to use, time-consuming, requiring expertise, and are often based on subjective perceptions. Departing from existing theory in team cognition techniques and theories, the research questions posed in this thesis are: 1) How can shared understanding be measured without the disadvantages of existing methods? 2) How can shared understanding be assessed without the bias of self-ratings and/or assessments by experts/observers? 3) Can team performance be better understood by the outcomes of an instrument that measures shared understanding? These research questions are answered through six studies that are presented in this thesis. Over the six studies an instrument was iterated and subsequently developed, called the “shared priorities instrument”. When using this instrument, team members are instructed to generate items and rank these in order of importance. By comparing these rank orders from different participants, a team measure of shared understanding can be calculated. The advantages of this instrument compared to earlier measures are that it is less expensive, easier to use, less time-consuming, does not require subject matter expertise, and that the instrument is distanced from subjective perceptions. Furthermore, the final study provides results where outcomes from the shared priorities instrument correlate with performance, supporting earlier research connecting shared understanding in teams with team performance. A structural equation model, a result of the final study, shows that the instrument is both valid and reliable. / Denna avhandling beskriver utvecklingen av ett mätinstrument för att värdera delad förståelse hos team. Syftet har varit att utveckla ett mätinstrument som är användbart, förståeligt, objektivt, flexibelt och självförklarande. Team som arbetar i naturalistiska miljöer förväntas ha en delad förståelse för gemensamma mål och hur dessa ska uppnås. Befintliga tekniker och mätinstrument för värdering av delad förståelse hos team är att de ofta lider av ett eller flera av följande problem: de är dyra, svåra att använda, tidskrävande, kräver expertis, och bygger många gånger på subjektiva bedömningar. Genom att utgå från teoribildningen inom teamkognition ställs följande forskningsfrågor: 1) Hur kan delad förståelse i team mätas utan nackdelarna hos befintliga metoder? 2) Hur kan delad förståelse i team mätas utan att riskera att färgas av partiskheten hos egenbedömningar och/eller experters värderingar? 3) Kan teamprestation förstås bättre med hjälp av ett instrument som mäter delad förståelse? Dessa frågeställningar besvaras i de sex delstudier som presenteras i denna avhandling där ett instrument (som kallas shared priorities) utvecklats för att mäta delad förståelse. Tillämpningen innebär att medlemmarna i ett team individuellt får generera och rangordna faktorer som de anser vara viktiga för att teamet ska nå sitt/sina gemensamma mål och därefter rangordna varandras faktorer. Genom att beräkna överensstämmelsen i dessa rangordningar erhålls ett mått på teamets delade förståelse. Fördelen med detta instrument, i jämförelse med tidigare mått, är att det kostar mindre, är lättare att använda, tar mindre tid, inte kräver någon domänexpertis, och att mätmetoden inte bygger på rent subjektiva bedömningar. I den sista delstudien erhålls resultat där instrumentet shared priorities korrelerar med prestation, vilket stöder tidigare forskning om delad förståelse. En statistisk modell (SEM) visar på instrumentets validitet och reliabilitet.

The purpose of this programme of research was to investigate the existence and development of shared understanding between football dyads through quantitative and qualitative research methods. Research has considered the importance of shared understanding between team members (Williamson and Cox 2014, Gershgoren et al. 2016) but rarely dyads within teams (i.e. Blickensderfer et al. 2010). Study One attempted to establish the existence of shared understanding between twenty football dyads. Study Two explored the levels of shared understanding displayed by forty-five defensive football dyads in game situations that had either a clear correct course of action or when there was no clear correct course of action. Through an interview-based approach, Study Three investigated potential factors that could contribute to the development of shared understanding between football dyads, based on the suggestions of twelve football players. Through these different methods, the three studies have provided evidence to support the existence and development of shared understanding between football dyads. The main findings of the thesis (a) shared understanding exists between dyads who have experience performing together, (b) when dyads are in a situation where there is a clear and correct option available, they are more likely to choose the same option based on their own individual experience, (c) when dyads are in a situation where there is no clear and correct option available, they are more likely to pick the same option based on their experience performing together, (d) experience performing together, having an efficient relationship with their partner, effective communication methods between one another and the role of the coach facilitated the development of shared understanding between dyads and (e) these factors facilitate an effective shared mental model between dyads.

This study will provide an overview of mental models in teams and the significance of this particular concept for design teams. Researchers have applied the concept of mental models to understand how people perform tasks on the basis of their knowledge, assumptions, predictions and expectation. An overview is also provided on the relation between performance and mental models and their effect on stakeholders. The implications for design field are discussed. Through the study of two organizations in the same industry, the teams are studied in detail for each of these companies and hence leading to the study of mental models of stakeholders. Through the use of interviews, a detailed analysis is done on the team mental models. The mental models of stack holders and their influence on different aspects of company and team performance are discussed in detail. The methodology for the study of mental models is also proposed in the study. The findings are based on the data collected through interviews in both the organizations. The empirical study is designed in such a way that it investigates further the validity of theoretical concepts. Warid is a major telecommunication brand in Pakistan that provides services in all the regions of the country. Ufone is also a well-known telecommunication brand, known for its innovative and creative TVCs (TV commercial). Interviews with the marketing and sales officials of both these organizations provided an insight into the teams behind their advertising/marketing campaigns and the affect of stakeholders’ mental models on the performance and sales of the companies. The comparative analysis between the theoretical and empirical studies suggests that the quality of mental models is affected by diversity in the team, education and experience of the team members. This may be brought in for future research to further verify the effectiveness of mental models for design teams and eventually the whole organization. Finally the implications of our findings are discussed. / Program: Magisterutbildning i informatik

Modern organizations face many significant challenges because of turbulent environments and a competitive global economy. These competitive demands have forced many organizations to increase levels of flexibility and adaptability through the use of virtual environments, and global teams are prevalent in business organizations. Although significant research has been conducted on virtual teams, the development of shared understanding among the members of these teams has not been studied adequately. Time/space barriers, communication complexities, and team diversity hinder the development of shared understanding in these teams. Based on the Media Synchronicity Theory (MST), a new theoretical model was created that used the constructs use of communication media, mode of interaction and team diversity to ascertain the influence shared understanding in global virtual teams. Additionally, the research model examined the relationship between shared understanding and team performance. The developed, web-based survey measured the participants’ use of communication media, mode of interaction, diversity, shared understanding, and team performance in virtual environments. The survey was administered through SurveyMonkey and distributed to a pool of opt-in respondents from firms with virtual teams. A total of 118 respondents participated in the study. The findings of this study indicate that use of communication and familiarity with systems are strong determinants of shared understanding, and subsequently shared understanding is a strong predictor of team performance. The study also indicates that mode of interaction is less of a predictor of shared understanding, and that cultural diversity, modified diversity construct, did not influence shared understanding. As virtual teams continue to proliferate, executive leaders and managers must ensure that teams and environments are designed for collaboration through use of communication technologies that promote synchronicity, and that its members are familiar with systems which subsequently promotes shared understanding.

In contemporary software development, an emergent understanding of the problem domain and envisioned goals forms the basis of designing, testing and development activities. Lack of a common understanding of the domain can result in costly rework or client dissatisfaction. Research shows that the development of shared understanding in this context is a complex and error-prone process and there is room for improvement. Is this because practitioners are not following suggested practice from literature? Or are the actual barriers to shared understanding not being addressed by current tools and techniques? Is the development of shared domain understanding even viewed as problematic (or even important) by practitioners? These are some questions that need to be investigated in order to effectively design process improvements and tool support in this area, yet there is little information related to this. This study takes a multi-case study approach, which incorporate semi-structured interviews with representative from ten small-to-medium organisations. This study focuses on the vendor’s perspective and includes a mix of application domains. Result of the interviews is analysed to discover themes and patterns related to an analysis framework constructed from the literature review. The findings indicate that vendors perceive the process of developing shared application-domain understanding with their clients as being both problematic and important to a successful implementation. Twelve barriers have been identified from the analysis. The results also confirm that the process of sharing understanding development is generally perceived as being evolutionary and collaborative. This process is described by most interviewees comprises iterative phases of elicitation, confirmation and refinement of the understanding. A definite preference for face-to-face interaction is evident at regular times throughout development, particularly in early stages, although the importance of ad-hoc communications by phone or email, as domain knowledge needs arise, is also emphasised. Access to cooperative domain-expert throughout development is generally seen as a critical success factor. Several companies report using in-house domain-expert as client “proxies” in this regard. There is a mix of attitudes apparent regarding the direct communications of developers with client stakeholders. This ranged from insisting that developers are involved from initial elicitation and “kick-off” meetings, to “shielding” developers almost entirely from client. In terms of representations of understanding, participants relate natural-language, screen-shots, mock-ups, prototypes and product-demonstrations as the most useful artefacts for sharing and confirming understanding of the problem domain. They emphasise the importance of flexibility and client familiarity with the representations. In general, there is no clear separation between problem and solution spaces evident when the interviewees discussed representations of understanding, and the preference seems to be for concrete rather than abstract representations. In conclusion, comparisons between the findings and literature generally confirm contemporary thinking regarding domain knowledge sharing, although a number of barriers were given particular emphasis in this field study. The use of computer-based tool support is not widespread and the need to improve the domain knowledge sharing process and tool support in practice is widely acknowledged by the participants in this investigation. This study has identified some fruitful areas of research in this regard.

In contemporary software development, an emergent understanding of the problem domain and envisioned goals forms the basis of designing, testing and development activities. Lack of a common understanding of the domain can result in costly rework or client dissatisfaction. Research shows that the development of shared understanding in this context is a complex and error-prone process and there is room for improvement. Is this because practitioners are not following suggested practice from literature? Or are the actual barriers to shared understanding not being addressed by current tools and techniques? Is the development of shared domain understanding even viewed as problematic (or even important) by practitioners? These are some questions that need to be investigated in order to effectively design process improvements and tool support in this area, yet there is little information related to this. This study takes a multi-case study approach, which incorporate semi-structured interviews with representative from ten small-to-medium organisations. This study focuses on the vendor’s perspective and includes a mix of application domains. Result of the interviews is analysed to discover themes and patterns related to an analysis framework constructed from the literature review. The findings indicate that vendors perceive the process of developing shared application-domain understanding with their clients as being both problematic and important to a successful implementation. Twelve barriers have been identified from the analysis. The results also confirm that the process of sharing understanding development is generally perceived as being evolutionary and collaborative. This process is described by most interviewees comprises iterative phases of elicitation, confirmation and refinement of the understanding. A definite preference for face-to-face interaction is evident at regular times throughout development, particularly in early stages, although the importance of ad-hoc communications by phone or email, as domain knowledge needs arise, is also emphasised. Access to cooperative domain-expert throughout development is generally seen as a critical success factor. Several companies report using in-house domain-expert as client “proxies” in this regard. There is a mix of attitudes apparent regarding the direct communications of developers with client stakeholders. This ranged from insisting that developers are involved from initial elicitation and “kick-off” meetings, to “shielding” developers almost entirely from client. In terms of representations of understanding, participants relate natural-language, screen-shots, mock-ups, prototypes and product-demonstrations as the most useful artefacts for sharing and confirming understanding of the problem domain. They emphasise the importance of flexibility and client familiarity with the representations. In general, there is no clear separation between problem and solution spaces evident when the interviewees discussed representations of understanding, and the preference seems to be for concrete rather than abstract representations. In conclusion, comparisons between the findings and literature generally confirm contemporary thinking regarding domain knowledge sharing, although a number of barriers were given particular emphasis in this field study. The use of computer-based tool support is not widespread and the need to improve the domain knowledge sharing process and tool support in practice is widely acknowledged by the participants in this investigation. This study has identified some fruitful areas of research in this regard.

Abstract This study examined student welfare teams in elementary, middle and junior high schools where a staff of group members tried to build a shared understanding of clients' problems and the solutions through conversation. The goal of the study was to identify what kind of socio-cognitive processes the welfare teams used and in which situations during the social interaction these processes occured in order to achieve the shared understanding. The goal of the first research question was to explore student welfare teams' shared understanding of their clients' problems and what kind solutions were constructed with the help of these socio-cognitive processes. The second study question focused on student welfare teams' decision making methods. The goal was to investigate how the teams chose certain solutions for the client. The third part of the research was to investigate how the team members as individuals use argumentation and actions to build the solution for the client. The study was qualitative in nature and was conducted by a case study influenced by research tradition of social constructionism and also tradition of fenomenology. The research data consisted of student welfare team meeting in elementary, middle and junior high schools. The data was collected in two schools during 2009–2010 and consisted of 28 student welfare team meetings, 16 hours in total. In the study there were 39 participants. The analysis was done by using content analysis. The results showed that the student welfare teams built the shared understanding of the task and the solutions through construction of knowledge and constructive conflicts. These socio-cognitive processes occured when the teams built the shared understanding of client's problems, solutions or both. According the results of this study the shared understanding that had been built of client's problem in the beginning of the meeting improved the construction of shared understanding of the solution. The constructive conflicts enabled the creation of a more qualified result provided all the team members co-operated when constructive conflict appeared. The research revealed that the majority of decision making processes in student welfare teams were based on expertise of client's problem area and the existing rules and regulations. The procedures for the client were built in a way which often required argumentation of the listeners. Arguments included team member's expertise on similar situations and the problems and effects of the presented procedure. The results of this study enable deeper understanding of student welfare teams in schools; how shared understanding of client's problems and the procedures suitable for the situation are built in student welfare teams by social interaction. The research opens a new perspective to be considered in the development of multidisciplinary groups. / Tiivistelmä Tämän tutkimuksen tutkimusaiheena on jaetun ymmärryksen rakentuminen moniammatillisten oppilashuoltoryhmien kokouksissa. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää, millaisten sosiokognitiivisten prosessien avulla oppilashuoltoryhmä rakentaa jaettua ymmärrystä käsiteltävästä tehtävästä ja asiakkaalle sopivista ratkaisumalleista. Ensimmäisen tutkimuskysymyksen avulla haluttiin saada selville, missä tilanteissa sosiokognitiiviset prosessit esiintyvät moniammatillisen oppilashuoltoryhmän vuorovaikutuksessa sekä millainen jaettu ymmärrys asiakkaan ongelmista ja tilanteeseen sopivista ratkaisumalleista muodostuu sosiokognitiivisten prosessien avulla. Toinen keskeinen tutkimusongelma liittyi pienryhmän päätöksentekoprosessiin. Tutkimuksen avulla haluttiin selvittää, miten moniammatillisen oppilashuoltoryhmän jäsenet tekevät päätöksen asiakkaalle suunnattavista ratkaisumalleista Lisäksi tutkimuksen kolmannen tutkimuskysymyksen avulla haluttiin saada selville, miten moniammatillisen oppilashuoltoryhmän jäsenet rakentavat asiakkaalle suunnattavia ratkaisumalleja yksilötasolla. Tutkimus toteutettiin laadullisena tapaustutkimuksena, joka nojautui ontologiselta lähestymistavaltaan sosiaalisen konstruktionismin tutkimuksen traditioon. Lisäksi se oli yhteneväinen joiltakin osin fenomenologisen tutkimustradition kanssa. Tutkimuksen aineisto muodostui sekä yläkoulun että alakoulun oppilashuoltoryhmän kokouksista sekä hojks-arviointikokouksista. Lukuvuoden 2009–2010 välisenä aikana kokouksia videoitiin 28, yhteensä 16 tuntia. Tutkimukseen osallistui kaiken kaikkiaan 39 henkilöä. Tutkimuksen aineisto analysoitiin sisällönanalyysin avulla. Tutkimustulokset osoittivat, että moniammatillisen oppilashuoltoryhmän jäsenet rakensivat jaettua ymmärrystä tehtävästä ja tilanteeseen sopivista ratkaisumalleista tiedon konstruoinnin ja konstruktiivisten konfliktien avulla. Sosiokognitiivisia prosesseja hyödynnettiin joko asiakkaan ongelmien, ratkaisumallien tai ongelmien ja ratkaisumallien rakentamisessa. Tutkimuksessa havaittiin, että jaetun ymmärryksen muodostuminen asiakkaan ongelmasta keskustelun alussa selkeytti tehtävän tavoitetta, jolloin mahdollisuus onnistua tehtävän suorittamisessa parani. Konstruktiivisten konfliktien avulla oppilashuoltoryhmillä oli mahdollisuus saavuttaa uusia ja parempia tulkintoja asiakkaasta ja tilanteeseen sopivista ratkaisumalleista. Ilmiön toteutuminen edellytti kuitenkin ryhmän jäsenten osallistumista esille tuodun epäkohdan muokkaamiseen yhdessä. Tutkimuksessa kävi myös ilmi, että moniammatillisten oppilashuoltoryhmien päätöksenteko perustui useimmiten asiakkaan ongelma-alueen asiantuntijuuteen ja olemassa oleviin sääntöihin ja määräyksiin. Asiakkaalle suunnattavat ratkaisumallit rakennettiin tavalla, joka edellytti usein kuulijoiden argumentointia. Ratkaisumalleihin liitetyissä perusteluissa oppilashuoltoryhmän jäsenet toivat esille asiantuntemuksensa, joka sisälsi tietoa vastaavanlaisissa tilanteissa käytetyissä ratkaisumalleista, niiden ongelmista ja vaikuttavuudesta. Tämän tutkimuksen tulokset nähdään syvemmän ymmärryksen mahdollistajana moniammatillisista oppilashuoltoryhmistä peruskouluissa. Tutkimustulokset ovat lisänneet ymmärrystä siitä, kuinka moniammatillisissa oppilashuoltoryhmissä rakennetaan jaettua ymmärrystä asiakkaan ongelmista ja tilanteisiin sopivista ratkaisumalleista vuorovaikutuksen avulla. Tutkimus tuo esille myös uusia moniammatillisten verkostojen kehittämistyössä huomioon otettavia näkökulmia.

Sweden is often identified as one of the countries where implementation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development goals (SDGs) is high. There is still, however, considerable room for improvements, especially considering the mitigation of climate change, and in addition, the reinterpretation of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs have been proven challenging in Swedish sustainability governance. Infrastructure, responsible for approximately 80%, has been identified as an area where strategies for climate change mitigation are likely to have a significant impact. Simultaneously, infrastructure development has been identified as key in driving human development and fulfilling Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. As sustainable infrastructure is becoming increasingly important, understanding what constitutes sustainable infrastructure is essential. Using a case study approach, this study explores the conceptualization and integration of sustainability in Sweden, explicitly focusing on road culvert replacements in northern Sweden. The findings reveal a lack of a shared understanding of what constitutes sustainable transport infrastructure but show a partially shared understanding of what constitutes sustainable road culvert replacement practices. The analysis highlights challenges faced by public organizations in implementing sustainability and emphasizes the importance of stakeholder collaboration and knowledge exchange. This research provides insights into strategies for integrating sustainability into road culvert replacements and highlights the importance of stakeholder collaboration for sustainable outcomes, contributing to future sustainable infrastructure development.

Building a shared understanding of non-functional requirements (NFRs) is a known but understudied challenge in requirements engineering, primarily in organizations that adopt continuous software engineering (CSE) practices. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many CSE organizations complied with working remotely due to the imposed health restrictions; some continued with remote work while implementing business processes to facilitate team communication and productivity. In remote CSE organizations, managing NFRs becomes more challenging due to the limitations to team communication coupled with the incentive to deliver products quickly. While previous research has identified the factors that lead to a lack of shared understanding of NFRs in CSE, we still have a significant gap in understanding how CSE organizations, particularly in remote work, build a shared understanding of NFRs in their software development. This thesis presents a study that explores how a remote CSE organization builds a shared understanding of NFRs. We conducted a six-month case study of a remote CSE organization using ethnography-informed methods and methods from grounded theory. Through thematic analysis of our qualitative data from interviews and observations, we identify some practices in building a shared understanding of NFRs, such as validating NFRs through feedback. In addition, we identified some of the impediments to building a shared understanding of NFRs in the organization, such as gaps in communication and the limited understanding of customer context. Furthermore, we conducted member-checking interviews to validate our findings for relevance and to gain additional insights on the shared understanding of NFRs within the organization. The collaborative workspace the organization uses for remote interaction is Gather, which simulates physical workspaces, and which our findings suggest allows for informal communications instrumental for building shared understanding. As actionable insights, we discuss our findings in light of proactive practices that represent opportunities for software organizations to invest in building a shared understanding of NFRs in their development. / Graduate

A number of significant challenges confront effective communication in partially distributed conceptual design teams (PDCDTs), mainly due to the ill-defined and open nature of conceptual design tasks and their associated solution spaces. In contrast to co-located team members who interact face-to-face, communication difficulties among PDCDTs can intensify as a result of the physical separation of team members and their heavy reliance on communication technologies to achieve desired outcomes. Despite advances in these technologies, the ability to convey contextual and paralinguistic cues is still more limited between distant partners in comparison to face-to-face interactions. Thus, team members often experience challenges in establishing and maintaining shared understanding. In addition, partially distributed teams are more vulnerable to in-group dynamics than fully distributed or fully co-located teams. There have been substantial theoretical advances in the field of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that seek to address these challenges. Although CMC theories are hypothetically convincing and generally accepted, actual empirical findings are to some extent either unconvincing or contradictory. Moreover, questions remain about whether CMC theories can hold up in the context of non-equivalent communication technologies. The proliferation of various communication devices (e.g., smart phones, tablets, laptops, and desktops)–not to mention the growing corporate use of fully immersive telepresence technologies–means that a variety of combinations of communication devices can be used. To date, however, the majority of CMC studies have focused on the use of equivalent communication technologies (e.g., laptop to laptop). Given these practical challenges and research gaps, the overall objective of this study was to investigate how to improve shared understanding in PDCDTs. The study encompassed four distinct research threads. Study 1 conceptualized shared understanding in PDCDTs. From Study 1, factors associated with shared understanding were identified, and an input-process-output (IPO) model of shared understanding was developed. Study 2 examined the intra- and inter-sub-group communication patterns among PDCDTs. From Study 2, three different analytical approaches for exploring communication patterns were used to elucidate valuable insights into how interactions within and across sub-groups change with design tasks, as well as how individual roles and interpersonal dynamics affect those interactions. Study 3 utilized the outcomes from Study 1 (IPO model of shared understanding) to develop and validate an instrument to measure shared understanding. Lastly, Study 4 examined how different combinations of non-equivalent communication technologies impacted shared understanding in PDCDTs by using the shared understanding instrument developed from Study 3. Specifically, four types of communication technology conditions were utilized: (1) telepresence to telepresence (two different sizes), (2) telepresence to laptops, (3) telepresence to mobile devices, and (4) laptops to mobile devices. The findings revealed significant impacts of communication technologies on co-located and distant shared understanding, as well as differences between co-located and distant shared understanding for each communication technology condition. In addition, the impacts of shared understanding on different communication technology user groups were identified. Based on these findings, a number of communication technology recommendations, as well as managerial intervention strategies to operate successful PDCDTs, were developed. / Ph. D.