Pooled, Sequential & Reciprocal Interdependence

Revision as of 14:58, 17 February 2022

Written by Tolga Azgun

Abstract

A project consists of systematic essential features in all levels that interacts with each other. The way and quality of interactions shape the level of 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. ^[1] Large scale projects encompassing various cross functional business units or teams have been characterized through their structural complexity.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.^[2] These resources vary from team to team and can be crucial for the success of the overall performance.These interlinkages of workflow between groups were conceptualized by Thompson (1967) ^[3] naming them “interdependencies”. 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. Interdependencies were categorized according to the severity of their dependence to one another. 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. ^[4] However, this article aims to illustrate dependencies from an inter-organisational point of view, in which contrasting historic concepts of interdependencies will be reviewed. Furthermore, it is aimed to highlight the groundwork of the notion constructed by Thompson (1967)^[5] in introducing the following concepts: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependence. 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.

Big Idea

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. ^[6] Consequently, elementary theories of the book “Organizations in Action” developed itself into having universal acceptance within the field.

As the adoption of groups and teams is increasing within organizations ^[7] it is essential to realize the effect of different types of interdependences on group control mechanisms and results. Typically, harmony in relationships and interaction between group members improves performance, in contrary, variance inflates interpersonal costs as well as disagreements which will weaken the group efficiency.^[8] Besides the work of Thompson (1967), much scholar’s research has been investigating the value of “management control” processes to complement synergies of teams and business units. ^[9] Adler’s (1995)^[10] main research has been focusing on how coordination exigencies of interdependences differ over the time of a product development project’s lifecycle. The results showed that the growing innovation of a product and process scope needed more interactive management instruments. Ambos and Schegelmilch (2007)^[11] 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. Macintosh and Daft’s (1987)^[12] center of attraction was to detect the effect of differing formal control mechanisms according to interdependence models. The summarized outcome of the study presented that, in growing pooled interdependences the usage of classic operating mechanisms grew, whereas the usage of “setting up budgets and statistical reports” declined. On the other hand, in an expanding scope of sequential interdependences, the adoption of “budgets and statistical reports” have shown an increase. However, on intensifying reciprocal interdependences the use of both classic operating mechanisms as well as budgets, statistical reports have dropped. In general, the outcome of ongoing research has proven that high level interdependences among teams requires more control. This is mainly because of the difficulty in reviewing the particular input of a sub team to the general project success while actions and resources commonly influence each unit’s performance.^[13] Therefore, planning and a suitable coordination between units in a project is critical in apportioning limited resources which could potentially hinder arising disputes for teams facing uncertainties. A suitable coordination strategy would allow a copious knowledge flow throughout the entire project which is essential for a flawless operation. ^[14]

Pooled, Sequential & Reciprocal Interdependecies According to J.D.Thompson

Interdependence can be described as the degree to which responsible units are contingent to one another because of the allocation or trade of mutual resources and actions to carry out objectives.^[5] As mentioned previously, the most popular systematic classification of task interdependence was brought in by J.D. Thompson who detected three types of interdependence - pooled, sequential and reciprocal interdependence. J.D. Thompson has actively worked with the following Guttman-scale to categorize these types according to their complexities: If a company or unit only consists of pooled interdependencies, then the organization is of low complexity, if there are only sequential interdependencies existent, the organization is of medium complexity, last but not least if the reciprocal interdependence is the type dominating the project, a high level of complexity is expected.

Pooled Interdependence

Figure 1: Pooled Interdependence, (own creation, inspired by ^[2] FO & BO symbolizes different units functioning in front-end (FO) and back-end operations (BO)

A pooled interdependency is the least intense dependency type and has the largest physical dispersal of team members out of the three proposed by Thompson. Thompson associated the mediating technology type with the organizational characteristics of pooled interdependence. It occurs when project teams split comparable resources and tasks but continue to work independently. However, the outcome of each member affects the whole project performance but does not hinder anyone else to proceed with their activities. Everyone of the team contributes to the overall performance with distinguished efforts and is backed by the entire team. Autonomous activities of each individual usually run parallelly and resources are allocated by a routine pool. Merging homogeneous resources and actions is mostly compelled by “economies of scale” to reduce costs. Therefore, this kind of resource interdependency originates when a great degree of consistency of resources are ready for use to accommodate the needs for taking decisions. The results can be mostly predicted beforehand.^[2]

The cost of coordination for pooled resource and task interdependencies is relatively low compared to its contraries. This is mainly because of the low-level management requirements. The need of active collaboration and communication is little. One of the main mechanisms is driving standardization in patterned workflows or in operation processes throughout units. In pooled interdependencies, it is crucial to maintain the devotion of each individual by reminding them how their input will be unified at the end result. Integrating a “reporting process” in which the decision makers or managers can assign a specific part of the total project to a team member, having routine team discussion where processes and regulations are reviewed could boost the motivation of the members. A gymnastics team is one of the many examples which could represent a pooled interdependence where each team member has to actively render a distinct contribution in order to succeed in team rankings. Another example is a school where different teachers each take actively part to accomplish the overall goal, which is that pupils learn, they are however all independent in their classes while teaching to their students.

Sequential Interdependence

Figure 2: Sequential Interdependence, (own creation, inspired by ^[2]) FO & BO symbolizes different units functioning in front-end (FO) and back-end operations (BO)

A sequential interdependence engages with workflows moving and operating between team members or units within a single direction. The sequence can be seen as a chain framework that helps the extension of the value stream.The intensity level of a sequential interdependency is definitely larger than a pooled coupling. The units who are located in the downstream side of the chain are very much reliant on the success and completion of the task of the first members of the unit. The task distribution begins with an input workflow and is transferred to the next recipient. Hence the receiver unit or team member is highly dependent on the completion of the previous work. Due to the sequential construct, the input resource of the downstream member is provided by the upstream member or unit. However, the direction of the resource is never in the opposite direction. This leads to adding resources task by task throughout the value chain. The critical point which requires further attention for the coordination of a sequential interdependence is the transfer of a share of task or resource to the consecutive member down in the value chain. The effectiveness and smooth functioning of handing the task or resource to the next unit can be key in the overall success. A respective example for a sequential team interdependence can be a rugby or track team where each athlete has to run his or her part in the field and hand off the baton to the next member on the sequence before the consecutive member can start their part. Another interesting example is a manufacturing hall where certain outsourced materials must be first purchased by the procurement team and hand it over to the first station in the assembly line. After the first station is reached in the assembly station it is most probably sent to the next section where the product is tested.^[2] To sustain the effectivity of an assembly line workflow or a sequentially structured unit some of the following coordination mechanisms are utilized in order to reduce the uncertainty. Standardization might be used to automate certain uncritical activities throughout the chain, however according to J.D.Thompson planning the workflow and scheduling a timetable should be used as a coordination method. ^[5] Integrating IT systems for scheduling and assisting the progress one-sided structure is seen as a critical point by bringing capabilities and competencies together for reaching functional agility.^[2]

Reciprocal Interdependence

Explaining reciprocal interdependence with a respective example & figure

Figure 3: Reciprocal Interdependence, (own creation, inspired by ^[2]) FO & BO symbolizes different units functioning in front-end (FO) and back-end operations (BO)

Coordinating Interdependence in Cross-Functional Project Teams

Standartization of Work Processes

Explaining the coordination method

Planning and Scheduling

Mutual Adjustments

Limitations of the Construct

critically reflect on the tool/concept/theory. When possible, substantiate your claims with literature

Annotated Bibliography

References

^[15]

1. ↑ Project Management Institute, Inc., The standard for project management A Guide To the Project Management Body of Knowledge (pmbok® Guide) – Seventh Edition and the Standard for Project Management (english), Project Management Institute, Inc., 2021
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6} "F. Ter Chian Tan, S. L. Pan and M. Zuo, "Realising platform operational agility through information technology–enabled capabilities: A resource‐interdependence perspective," INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOURNAL, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 582-608, 2019
3. ↑ "B. Victor and R. S. Blackburn, "Interdependence: An Alternative Conceptualization," The Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 486-498, 1987
4. ↑ "R. H. Chenhall and D. Morris, "THE IMPACT OF STRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT, AND INTERDEPENDENCE ON THE PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS," Accounting Review, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 16-135, 1986
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2} J. D. Thompson, Organizations in Action. Social Science Bases and Administrative Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
6. ↑ J. R. Galbraith, Organization Design. Reading, Mass, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
7. ↑ S. R. Barley, "Explaining pooled interdependence with a respective example & figure," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 61, 1990.
8. ↑ M. J. Kostecki and K. Mrela, "Book Reviews : Andrew H. Van de Ven and Diane Ferry: Measuring and Assessing Organizations," Laboratory of Organizational Sociology. The Polish Academy of Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 300-302, 1981
9. ↑ J. Frost, K. Bagban and R. Vogel, "Managing Interdependence in Multi-business Organizations : A Case Study of Management Control Systems," Schmalenbach Business Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 225-260, 2016
10. ↑ P. Adler, "INTERDEPARTMENTAL INTERDEPENDENCE AND COORDINATION - THE CASE OF THE DESIGN/MANUFACTURING INTERFACE," Orhanization Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 147-167, 1995.
11. ↑ B. Ambos and B. B. Schlegelmilch, "Innovation and control in the multinational firm: A comparison of political and contingency approaches," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 472-486, 2007
12. ↑ N. Macintosh and R. Daft, "MANAGEMENT CONTROL-SYSTEMS AND DEPARTMENTAL INTERDEPENDENCIES - AN EMPIRICAL-STUDY," Accounting Organizations and Society, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 49-61, 1987
13. ↑ V. Blazevic and A. Lievens, "Learning during the new financial service innovation process – antecedents and performance effects," Journal of Business Research, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 374-391, 2004.
14. ↑ C. Tomkins, "Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 161-191, 2001
15. ↑ "Détienne, F. (2006). Collaborative design: Managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interacting with Computers, 18(1 SPEC. ISS.), 1-20. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.05.001