A longitudinal study of multidisciplinary engineering design teams using Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model of group development

The use of groups has increased in industry making the study of group development an important area of research. Group development models have been created to attempt to explain the development process. These models have been tested on a wide-range of group types and work disciplines. An important model, Gersick's punctuated equilibrium model, was created based upon the idea that groups transition between two phases at the temporal midpoint of a project. This model has received a great deal of attention and has been tested in several studies. Engineering groups, however, have not been tested specifically for applicability of the Gersick punctuated equilibrium model. This study evaluates the applicability of the Gersick punctuated equilibrium model to engineering groups. Furthermore, the outcome of the groups as related to the adherence of the model and the location of transitions between phases has not been evaluated. This study conducts this evaluation utilizing six groups of engineers within a longitudinal study performed during a semester at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.;The transition between phases was defined utilizing data obtained from two observation systems during an Integrated Product Team class. Transition markers were determined based upon data obtained using the Group Development Observation System and its application to the Gersick definition of transition markers. A second dataset, the behavioral dataset, was obtained utilizing data obtained during a Larson and LaFasto study. The behavioral dataset supplied data that was used to evaluate the Gersick transition markers as well.;Results of the evaluation showed that engineering groups do not necessarily follow the midpoint transition as defined by the Gersick punctuated equilibrium model. Specifically, all six groups did not have a transition at the project temporal midpoint. It was found that transition points for groups located in the second half of the project period led to improved outcome as compared to groups either not having a transition or having a transition in the first half of the project period.