Architectural Engineering and Design
Management
Application of team role theory to
construction design teams
a
Sepani Senaratne & Saranga Gunawardane
b
a
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University
of Western Sydney, Penrith (Kingswood) Campus, Building Y, Room
Y3.56, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
b
Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa,
Katubedda, Sri Lanka
Published online: 10 Jun 2013.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2015
Vol. 11, No. 1, 1– 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2013.802980
Application of team role theory to construction design teams
Sepani Senaratnea∗ and Saranga Gunawardaneb
a
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Penrith
(Kingswood) Campus, Building Y, Room Y3.56, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia;
b
Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Sri Lanka
(Received 3 September 2012; accepted 26 April 2013)
Teams are the primary unit of working in the construction industry, and thus the performance of an
industry can be improved when team performance is improved. Therefore, managers in the field
should be well aware of good team-working practices for successful forming and managing of
teams within construction industry and many authors in the field have pointed out this as a
necessity. Team composition is a key factor in influencing team performance; when considering
the team composition, it is relevant to take into account the different roles which the members
play and the way they interact with one another. Team roles of the members can be used as a
tool for the team to have effective execution of their work, effective management of their
relationships with its environment and also to maintain the team’s strength in meeting social
needs of individuals who form the team. The design team being a major and most prominent
sub-team will have an impact on project success; the applicability of team role concept in
construction design teams will be beneficial to its clients, project managers, team members and,
finally, for the project and construction industry as a whole. According to Belbin’s team role
theory, when a team is more balanced in terms of the spread of naturally occurring team roles,
it tends to be high performing. This study explored the existence of team roles and their effect
to team performance in construction design teams. To explore this research problem, three case
studies of in-house design teams which were involved in building construction projects with
separated procurement arrangement were conducted in Sri Lanka. Team roles of the design
team members were assessed using the Belbin Team Role Self Perception Inventory, while
semi-structured interviews were conducted with the key design team members as well as team
selectors. The findings revealed that individuals are assigned to design teams considering their
functional roles rather than team roles. But, team members naturally adopted team roles in a
way that it suits their functional role, project requirements and team setting under which they
operate, in most of the situations. Team performance was affected by several complex factors.
Hence, even though there seems to be an effect from team role balance to team performance, it
could not be isolated and figured out. Despite this limitation, this study offers implications
particularly to design team selectors such as clients and their project managers on application
of team role theory in construction context.
Keywords: construction; team roles; team performance; design teams
1.
Introduction
1.1 Team working in construction
Cornick and Mather (1999) argued that a construction project of any scale can never be realised
unless a team of people with diverse knowledge and skills are created and operate together.
∗
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
2
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Hence, teamwork is a prerequisite for the successful delivery of construction projects (Steward &
Barrick, 2000; Wong, 2007).
A project team in the construction industry can be defined as a group of construction professionals and personnel from one or more organisations who come together to fulfil the necessary
design, detailing and construction functions which are involved in the construction project (Chan
& Tam, 2000). Cornick and Mather (1999) explained the main parties of construction project
teams as the client, designer, construction manager and specialist sub-contractors which again
becoming larger with many sub-teams with their own leaders who are carrying out different
functions.
According to Senaratne and Hapuarachchi (2009, p.175), a construction project team
within traditional procurement is, ‘a collection of two or more people with complementary
skills, who come from different disciplines and organisations, to perform a common objective,
but with individual objectives and operating from different locations with multiple reporting
relationships, whose accountability and leadership are significantly governed by the contractual
arrangements’. Hence, when the projects grow more complex technically, organisationally and
contractually, team effort is more required (Fryer, Fryer, Ellis, & Egbu, 2004). In order to
narrow down the scope of the research, it will focus only on design teams which can be
considered as a significant sub-team in the construction industry. Furthermore, design teams
can be recognised as most suitable for the purpose of this research over contractors’ team.
Basically, design teams are more stable in terms of human resource flow and smaller in
size in contrast to contractors’ team which is larger in size as well as most fluid in terms
of people, as a majority included construction labourers, which will result in more complexities in studying.
With regard to design teams, Pectas and Putlar (2006) mentioned that a successful management of design is critical to quality, cost-effectiveness and timeliness of projects. Further,
in a survey of AEC companies in the USA (Arditi & Gunaydin, 1998), “collaboration among
parties” was ranked first among the many factors that affect quality in design phase. Likewise, Pryke and Smyth (2006) highlighted the importance of adaptation of good teamworking practices in sub-sectors, such as design organisations, in order to enhance the
performance of construction projects. Therefore, the above literature findings elaborate the
importance of proper teamwork practices in the total construction team and in design
teams, particularly.
In a team, individual human inputs should aggregate to team-level outcomes and one potential
mechanism which links individuals and team-level characteristics is the concept of roles (Stewart,
Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005). Therefore, it can be argued that the roles of the team members are likely
to have an impact on the team performance. Senior (1997) also supported the fact that crucial to
performance of teams are the abilities and behaviours of their members, which are related to the
roles that they play. Therefore, the next section discusses key literature findings on the concept of
team roles.
1.2 Team role concept
Belbin (1993) had explained about two types of roles which are namely functional role and
team role (Rajendran, 2005). ‘Functional role’ refers to the job demands that a person has
been engaged to meet by supplying the requisite technical skills and operational knowledge,
whereas ‘team role’ refers to a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others at
work in certain distinctive ways (Belbin, 1993). Belbin (1993) further emphasised that the
team role describes how the individual fits into the team, not what particular function he or
she performs.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
3
Water, Ahaus and Rozier (2008) highlighted Belbin’s argument on team composition as a
key factor in influencing team performance. However, general composition of teams in the workplace has been determined through either functional or status considerations in order to ensure
the right level of expertise and experience (Partington & Harris, 1999). Senior (1997) argued
that the notion of team roles emerged due to the fact that functional roles do not help in
matters such as the way different team members approach a problem or task, the way team
members interact with one another and their style of behaviour in general. She further demonstrated that individuals will not only bring the characteristics of their functional roles to their
activities as members of teams but also they will take up one or more team roles, naturally.
Therefore, the concept of team roles is an important issue that affects team performance (Partington & Harris, 1999).
Various researchers have studied on team roles and offered different team role classifications. For example, Chong (2007) revealed several researchers who focused on team roles
and team performance. Despite these studies, Water et al. (2008) highlighted that Belbin’s
(1993) team role framework is probably one of the most prominent and widely used, in a
great variety of practical team development and management development purposes at
present. Therefore, among the number of team role theories available, Belbin’s team role
theory was selected for this study. The next section offers more details on the Belbin’s
team role theory.
1.3
Belbin’s team role theory
Belbin’s team role theory argues that while the types of behaviour that people engage in are
infinite, the range of useful behaviours that make an effective contribution to team performance is finite. He grouped these behaviours into eight clusters, each of which described a
pattern of behaviour characteristic of the way in which one team member interacted with
another. However, Belbin (1993) further asserted that this ‘team role behaviour’ is not
fixed by individual personalities, but could be changed by situational factors and also individual learning patterns. A brief insight to each of these team roles is provided in Table 1. Yeh,
Smith, Jennings, and Castro (2006) mentioned that these team roles can be categorised as
Action-oriented roles (SH, IMP, CF), People-oriented roles (CO, TW, RI) and Cerebral or
Thinking roles (PL, ME, SP).
Belbin (1993) promoted that a team to be successful and effective, the presence of all nine
diverse roles needs to be apparent without duplicating and so the team is called to be a
‘balanced team’. According to Senior (1997), the central tenet of Belbin’s theories is that
more balanced a team is in terms of the spread of naturally occurring team roles, the greater
the propensity for it to be high performing (see Section 2 on how to identify team roles). Conversely, it can be argued that certain team roles will be necessary more for a construction project
depending on its requirements. For example, new innovative project may require more plants
where there is a necessity to generate new proposals and solve complex problems. However,
the continuing research in Belbin’s work is testimony to its influence in the study of team performance (Chong, 2007).
A number of researchers have tested whether there is a link between team role balance and
performance based on different aspects. However, the results of these studies were ambiguous
and do not lead to a clear direction. The reason could be only one or few aspects of team performance were considered. Wong (2007) mentioned about three elements of team performance which
must be in place and working in synergy for a project team to be successful. They are namely:
content, process and behaviours. As explained by Wong (2007), content is the ‘what’ or intent
of the team, process is the ‘how’ the tools and procedures that help a team reach its objectives
4
Table 1.
Belbin’s team role typology.
Type
Symbol
Positive qualities
Implementer (The
effective organiser
of the team)
Coordinator (The
team controller)
IMP
Conservative, predictable,
dutiful
Organising ability, practical common
sense, hardworking, self-discipline
CO
Calm, self-controlled, selfconfident
Shaper (The slave
driver)
SH
Highly strung, dynamic,
outgoing
A capacity for treating and
welcoming all potential
contributors on their merits and
without prejudice. A strong sense
of objectives
Drive and a readiness to challenge
inertia, ineffectiveness,
complacency or self deception
Plant (The source of
original solutions)
PL
Individualistic, serious
minded, unorthodox
Genius, imagination, intellect and
knowledge
Resource
investigator (The
creative
negotiator)
Monitor evaluator
(The analyzer of
problems)
RI
Extroverted, enthusiastic,
curious, communicative
A capacity for contacting people and
exploring anything new. An ability
to respond to a challenge
ME
Sober, unemotional,
prudent
Judgment, discretion, hard
headedness
Team worker (The
internal facilitator)
TW
Socially orientated, rather
mild, sensitive
Completer
Finisher(The one
who guarantees
delivery)
Specialist (The one
who provide indepth expertise)
CF
Painstaking, orderly,
conscientious, anxious
SP
Expert, defendant, not
interested in others,
serious, self-disciplined,
efficient
Adopted from: Belbin (2004, p. 72).
Allowable weaknesses
Mostly needed circumstances
Lack of flexibility,
unresponsiveness to
unproven ideas
No more than ordinary in
terms of intellect or
creative ability
Where hardworking and
systematic fashion of
problem solving needed
When there is need to tackle
problems calmly
Proneness to provocation,
irritation and impatience
Where political implications
are apt to slow thing down
and when there is necessity
for change
Up in the clouds, inclined
When need to generate
to disregard practical
proposals and solve
details or protocol
complex problems
Liable to lose interest once When external contacts and
the initial fascination has
subsequent negotiations
passed
are mostly needed
Lacks the inspiration or the When success or failure of a
ability to motivate others
job hinges on a relatively
small number of crunch
decisions
An ability to respond to people and to Indecisiveness at moments Under a managerial regime
situations, and to promote team
of crisis
where conflicts are liable
spirit
to arise or to be artificially
suppressed
A capacity for follow through.
A tendency to worry about Where task demands close
Perfectionism
the small things. A
concentration and a high
reluctance to ‘let go’
degree of accuracy
Single-minded, self-starting,
dedicated; provides knowledge and
skills in rare supply
Contributes on a narrow
front only. Dwells on
technicalities
Where firms service or
product is based on a
certain rare skills and
knowledge
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Typical features
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
5
Figure 1. Dimensions of team performance. Adopted from: Wong (2007, p. 27).
and behaviour is the collective human interactions of the team. Content is regarded as the hard
element, while processes and behaviours are perceived as soft elements. To accomplish the
purpose of the project, correct processes and the right behaviours are needed. Thus, team performance is high when all three elements are operating well; therefore, in order to get a compressive
measure of project team performance, all these three elements should be taken into account.
Examples for the composition of each team element are given in Figure 1 as summarised from
Wong (2007).
Having discussed about Belbin’s team role theory and its relation to team performance,
the next section discusses about the understanding of team role concept in the construction
industry.
1.4
Application of team role theory in construction industry
The general composition of the project team in construction is clear by way of the traditional functional roles required for any project (Cornick & Mather, 1999). But, besides these functional roles,
individuals in a team inherently adopt natural roles based on their personal preferences and
characteristics (Partington & Harris, 1999) which is not well understood in construction. Fryer
et al. (2004) pointed out that project teams are not usually put together in a systematic way
and mostly it depends on who is available (and when), who has the necessary experience for
this particular type of building, who recommends whom and so on. People who come into
these teams from different professions are likely to have different interests, skills, backgrounds
and personalities which are reinforced by the pattern and focus of the education and training
adopted by each profession (Fryer et al., 2004). Therefore, simply bringing together a group of
professionals does not necessarily ensure that they will function effectively as a team (Cooley,
1994 cited in Macmillan, 2001).
Constructing Excellence (2004) suggests that in managing a team consider not only individuals’ technical skills, knowledge and experience but also their ability to coordinate actions,
6
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
behaviours and interpersonal qualities. As the ‘concept of team roles’ is much more associated
with those factors, the significance of team roles for the construction teams becomes evident.
In their research with regard to construction teams, Sommerville and Dalziel (1998) too
emphasised that the success of construction projects involves examining the behaviour of
each team member and monitoring how different individuals interact. Moreover, Yeh et al.
(2006) suggested that construction team members must identify their team roles in order to
understand how they operate within the team. Hence, these literature findings demonstrate
the importance of team role concept to the construction industry for improved team performance. However, further research is required to understand the applicability of team role theory
in construction. Hence, this study frames the research problem through the following research
questions:
Research problem framework
RQ1: How does the selection of design teams occur?
RQ2: What are the generally adopted team roles by design team members?
RQ3: How does design team role balance influence on team performance in construction?
2.
Research methodology
According to Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe (2002), ‘Interpretivism’ is one of the philosophies
where the reality is determined by people rather than by objective and external factors. This interpretivism research philosophy was adapted in this research. The empirical study was conducted
by adapting a case study research approach which helps to gain more in-depth knowledge pertaining to existing theoretical insights. Unit of analysis of the study was a ‘design team’ and three
design teams in Sri Lanka were selected for the study.
2.1
Case study selection
Yin (2003) pointed out that the criteria for selecting cases is a matter of discretion and judgement,
convenience, access and to be those which are subjective for the purpose of the research. Accordingly, criteria and reasoning for selection of cases are given in Table 2.
Refer Table 3 for details of the cases.
As Tables 2 and 3 depict, the cases were selected with similar scope in terms of in-house
design teams engaged in building projects, under separate procurement arrangement and with
which the construction phase was completed.
Table 2.
Case study selection criteria.
Criterion
In-house design teams
Reason
In order to avoid complexities associated with virtual relationships in interorganisational design teams
Engaged in building projects In order to avoid complexities which may occur when evaluating building
and civil projects simultaneously
Separated procurement
As it is the most popular procurement arrangement in Sri Lanka and to avoid
arrangement
contractor becoming part of design team which will lead to many
complexities.
Projects completed design
Although design teams operate from inception to completion of projects,
phase
their major role and most of the activities are in the design phase.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
Table 3.
Details of the selected cases.
Case
Type
Project cost (Rs.)
Project duration
Stage
Nature of the client
Composition of the
design team
2.2
7
Case A
Case B
Case C
Simulator training building
114 millions
8 months
Design completed,
construction to
commence
Private client
Architect (leader)
Bank branch office
48 millions
20 months
Design completed, piling
work continuing
Head office building
915 millions
22 months
Design completed, piling
work continuing
Government client
Architect (leader)
Government client
Team leader (design)
Chief QS
Project QS
Structural engineer
Services engineer
Electrical engineer
Project architect
QS
Structural engineer
Electrical engineer
Draughtsman
Architect
QS
Structural engineer
Services engineer
Electrical engineer
Interior designer
Town planner
Construction coordinator
Architect
Data collection
This section explains how the qualitative data were collected. The data collection was done in two
stages. Initial stage was focused on identifying the team role preferences of team members in
selected three case studies, and based on that the second stage of the data collection was carried out.
2.2.1
Stage 1
The aim of stage 1 was to identify team members’ team roles. Belbin Team Role Self-Perception
Inventory (BTRSPI) – eight role version was used for this. Belbin Team Role Self-Perception
Inventory (BTRSPI) was developed by Belbin in order to determine individuals’ team role preferences. BTRSPI gives a quantified summary of its respondent’s affinity with each team role
in terms of a score (Belbin, 2004). BTRSPI consists with seven sections which in each section
include eight statements which describe different behaviours. Respondents were asked to distribute a total of 10 points among those statements marked (a) to (h) in each section which they think
best describe their behaviour (refer Figure 2 for Section 1 of BTRSPI). In order to minimise the
wishful thinking of members in answering to BTRSPI, they were advised to answer it considering
how they act in team and not based on how they want to act. BTRSPI scores for each team
member were calculated using the Self-perception inventory analysis sheet (refer Figure 2).
Figure 2 presents a calculation example using a response received for Section 1 of the inventory.
Further, observing that some of the nine roles were more popular than others, and therefore make
BTRSPI scores directly comparable, Belbin produced a table of norms as indicated in Table 4.
The scores team members got with regard to each team role is then compared with Table 4 and
determined that person’s affinity for a particular role. Thus, for example, a person scoring 17 or
more for the Team Worker role from BTRSPI would indicate a very high preference for that role.
Roles which get team role scoring ‘high’ or ‘very high’ according to role norms given in Table 4
are called as ‘naturally’ present and these roles are considered to be authentic for the participant
(results of the first stage of all the cases are presented in Section 3.3). This way, team roles of the
design team members were identified in all the cases. The definition of team role balance as
8
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Figure 2.
Section 1 of BTRSPI and the analysis sheet.
mentioned in Section 1.3 was used to identify whether the teams were balanced or not. Accordingly, the results indicated that all the teams were imbalanced with regard to team roles. Next, the
second stage of data collection was planned.
2.2.2
Stage 2
Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews together with observations were the primary data collection techniques used in this stage. Interviews were conducted with team selectors and design team
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
Table 4.
9
Role norms.
Role norms
Low (0 –33%)
Average (33 –66%)
High (66–85%)
Very high (85 –100%)
RI
TW
PL
CH
CF
SP
SH
ME
IM
0– 6
7– 9
10 –11
12– 21
0–8
9–12
13–16
17–25
0–4
5–8
9–12
13 –29
0–6
7–10
11–13
14 –18
0 –3
4 –6
7 –9
10 –17
0– 8
9–11
12– 15
16– 20
0–8
9–13
14–17
18–36
0–5
6–9
10–12
13–19
0–6
7–11
12 –16
17 –23
Source: Pollock (2009, p. 46).
members. Two separate interview guidelines were developed, one for team selectors, focusing on
how design teams are formed, and one for team members, focusing on team performance.
The team members’ interview guidelines addressed the areas of team role imbalance in each
team and researched whether there are team performance issues due to these imbalances. As
some of the imbalances found in three teams were different to one another, the basic structure of
the interview guidelines had to be adjusted slightly to match the context considering the three
cases. Common features were covered by the basic structure while adding and removing certain
questions based on the team role imbalances in each team. For example, since implementer role
is duplicated in all the three teams, a question was formed to identify whether there are any team
performance issues related to duplication of this role; hence, this question was available in interview
guidelines of all the three cases. Similarly, when plant role is not available in Case A, the question
tried to explore the influence of absence of plant role on team performance, while when three plant
roles were presented in Case C; the question was adjusted to find out the influence of having three
plant roles on team performance. The findings of these two stages are presented and discussed next.
3. Research findings
The research findings are presented in this section following each research question. First, more
details of the cases are given.
Case studies details
3.1
Selected cases were three in-house design teams of building construction projects which were
adopting traditional (separated) procurement method (refer Table 3 for summarised case
details). Case details are as follows:
.
.
A project which was aimed to construct a three-storey simulator training building was
selected as Case A. The building required to house two simulators and also to provide
other related facilities such as discussion rooms for students, administration and teaching
areas. The client has demanded for a unique building as it is the first building to be built
in the country in that nature. An in-house design team of a government consultancy organisation was the design team of this project. Further, the members belonged to different
departments geographically dispersed within the different floors of the same building.
Construction of a two-storey branch office for a corporate bank was the project selected for
Case B. An in-house design team of a private consultancy organisation was the design team
of this project. The client of this project has had a long-term relationship with this consultancy
organisation. Therefore, the design team was much more familiar with the project because of
their previous experiences of other branch offices constructed for the same client. As
explained by the architect, this client had a corporate image and design needed to be done
in line with this image which limited the designing freedom, and the project was less
10
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
.
complex. Members worked in the same floor, having a very close geographical dispersion
within the office. But, the structural engineering function of this design team had been outsourced and the structural engineer was not physically presented in the same office always.
Construction of 12-storey head office for a governmental department was the project
selected for Case C. An in-house design team of a private consultancy organisation was
the design team of this project. There was an appointed team leader for the design phase
and he was responsible for coordinating within the team and with the client. Further, a construction coordinator has been appointed for the design phase in order to coordinate the
design team with the client and the contractor. All the members were dispersed very
closely in the same floor of the same office building.
3.2 RQ 1: Selection of design teams
It was observed that some members of these studied teams were aware of the existence of team
roles through their education, seminars or practical experience. Most of the members who were
aware have learnt it by practical experience and not through education and training. However
when explained, team members emphasised that having a proper knowledge about team role theories will be beneficial for teamworking and improving team performance.
Further, it was apparent that ‘team roles’ were not currently a considerable factor in design team
selection in these three cases. Instead, design teams were basically formed based on the functional
roles required for the project. The team selector of Case C mentioned, ‘we basically analyze the
project; size of the project, capacity and the features like foundation, structure and based on that
select the members for the design team’, while in B the team selector mentioned that ‘we have
to provide sufficient number of functional roles for a particular project. Otherwise project cannot
be done’ and the team selector of Case A mentioned, ‘when the client wants a unique building
we have to select the correct team and specially, pick the correct architect and structural engineer
having particular skills’. Accordingly, the types of functional roles required for a project were
mainly decided based on the requirements of the project. The sufficient number of professionals
from each discipline is appointed based on the scale and capacity of the project. The other
factors include special requirements of the project, experience of the members, qualifications
required, availability of human resources, recommendations and the up to date workload of
members. However, it was apparent that the teams were not selected based on ‘team roles’.
3.3
RQ 2: Team roles of the team members
As explained in Section 2, team roles’ scores were calculated. The results are shown in
Tables 5 – 10 and Figure 3 – 5. For example, in Case A, the calculated team role scores are
given in Table 5, while Table 6 shows the significance of these values in terms of low to very
high using Table 4 given in Section 2 as the basis. Figure 3 depicts the pie chart grouping of
the roles into action-oriented, people-oriented and cerebral clusters.
In all the three cases, the members showed different preferences for different team roles and had
taken up more than one (two to four) team role besides their functional roles. When analysing the
three cases together, it was apparent that in Case A, action-oriented roles were the highest, whereas
in Cases B and C, people-oriented roles were the highest. The separation of departments in Case A
may be the reason for this. In Case A, team members were physically dispersed within different
floors of the same building and more vertical relationships with the departments were visible
instead of having horizontal relationships within the team. However, in Cases B and C, the
members had more horizontal relationships within the team,since they were physically located in
the same floor and had no departmentalisation. However, cerebral roles were the least presented
in all the three teams. Each cluster is discussed in detail next while considering each role.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
11
Results of Case A
Table 5.
Self-perception inventory scores of Case A.
Action-oriented
Functional
role
Implementer Shaper
Architect
Chief
quantity
surveyor
Quantity
surveyor
Structural
engineer
Services
engineer
Electrical
engineer
Table 6.
People-oriented
Completer
finisher
Team
worker
Cerebral
Resource
Monitor
investigator Coordinator Plant evaluator
18
9
4
9
2
7
12
8
7
9
15
10
4
8
8
10
11
8
3
12
15
16
3
2
10
9
17
12
2
5
2
13
18
2
17
14
8
5
0
6
13
5
11
19
7
4
9
2
Team roles of the members of Case A.
Action-oriented
Functional
role
Architect
Chief
quantity
surveyor
Quantity
surveyor
Structural
engineer
Services
engineer
Electrical
engineer
Total NR
Implementer Shaper
People-oriented
Completer
finisher
Team
worker
Cerebral
Resource
Monitor
investigator Coordinator Plant evaluator
VH
A
L
A
L
H
A
L
A
A
VH
A
L
A
A
H
A
L
L
A
VH
VH
L
L
A
A
VH
A
L
L
L
VH
VH
L
VH
H
A
L
L
A
H
L
VH
VH
A
L
H
L
3
0
4
2
1
2
1
2
Note: VH, very high preference for role; H, high preference for role; A, average preference for role; L, low preference for
role.
Figure 3. Categories of team roles – Case A.
12
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Results of Case B
Table 7.
Self-perception inventory scores of Case B.
Action-oriented
Functional
role
Implementer Shaper
Senior
Architect
Architect
Quantity
surveyor
Structural
engineer
Electrical
engineer
Draughtsman
Table 8.
People-oriented
Completer
finisher
Team
worker
Cerebral
Resource
Monitor
investigator Coordinator Plant evaluator
3
7
15
7
7
22
0
9
24
5
6
18
1
3
11
10
11
22
11
7
3
0
3
5
8
9
7
11
8
17
3
7
6
7
17
19
5
8
3
5
12
13
3
16
5
9
5
7
Team roles of the members of Case B.
Action-oriented
Functional
role
Senior
Architect
Architect
Quantity
surveyor
Structural
engineer
Electrical
engineer
Draughtsman
Total NR
Implementer Shaper
People-oriented
Completer
Finisher
Team
worker
Cerebral
Resource
Monitor
investigator Coordinator Plant evaluator
L
L
VH
L
A
VH
L
A
VH
L
L
VH
L
L
A
A
H
VH
H
A
L
L
L
L
A
A
H
A
A
VH
L
A
L
L
VH
VH
L
A
L
L
H
2
A
1
L
3
H
2
L
2
A
3
A
0
A
0
Note: VH, very high preference for role; H, high preference for role; A, average preference for role; L, low preference for
role.
Figure 4. Categories of team roles – Case B.
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
13
Results of Case C
Table 9.
Self-perception inventory scores of Case C.
Action-oriented
Functional role
Team leader
(design)
Architect
Structural
engineer
Services engineer
Quantity
surveyor
Interior designer
Electrical
engineer
Project
coordinator
(construction)
Town planner
3.3.1
People-oriented
Completer
finisher
Team
worker
Resource
investigator
17
7
6
6
7
15
4
9
3
3
9
8
4
7
21
8
14
11
0
12
13
7
7
7
10
17
0
0
8
13
17
2
Implementer Shaper
11.5
Cerebral
Coordinator Plant
8.5
Monitor
evaluator
7
7
8
13
23
3
12
12
6
11
7
6
2
4
7
11
20
15
11
7
12
3
10
12
0
9
5
11
12
7
4
10
3
14
14
14
0
6
People-oriented roles
Empirical findings which emerged from cross-Case analysis with regard to people-oriented roles
(Coordinator – CO, Resource Investigator – RI and Team Worker – TW) are discussed below.
COs have the ability to cause others to work towards shared goals. Architects of Cases A and B,
who were the team leaders, played the CO role. But, the architect of Case C did not perform it,
Table 10. Team roles of the members of Case C.
Action-oriented
Functional role
Team leader
(design)
Architect
Structural
engineer
Services engineer
Quantity
surveyor
Interior designer
Electrical
engineer
Project
coordinator
(construction)
Town planner
Total NR
Implementer Shaper
People-oriented
Completer
finisher
Team
worker
Resource
investigator
Cerebral
Coordinator Plant
Monitor
evaluator
H
H
H
L
L
A
A
A
A
H
L
A
L
L
A
L
L
A
A
H
VH
L
H
H
VH
A
H
A
L
VH
H
L
L
H
A
L
L
L
A
H
A
A
A
H
L
L
VH
H
H
A
H
L
H
H
L
A
A
A
A
H
VH
A
L
H
VH
4
L
3
L
2
H
5
VH
4
VH
3
L
3
A
4
Note: VH, very high preference for role; H, high preference for role; A, average preference for role; L, low preference for
role.
14
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Figure 5. Categories of team roles – Case C.
may be because the assigned team leader for design phase had fully engaged in the leadership
role. Other members, who played the CO role in all the three cases, are people who need to interact with others as required by their functional role. It shows that the members have adapted this
role according to the team setting under which they operate and are assigned responsibilities. In all
the three cases, RI role was commonly played by the quantity surveyor and also by professionals
who need to keep more contacts within and outside the team such as town planner, interior
designer and project coordinator. Hence, the empirical evidence revealed that both RI and CO
roles matched with the functional roles of the members. Having more TWs than the required
number was a common feature in all the three cases. But mostly, members who played this
role played another action-oriented or cerebral role.
3.3.2
Action-oriented roles
Implementer – IMP, Completer Finisher – CF and Shaper – SH team roles belong to actionoriented categories and how they existed in three cases are discussed here. In all the three
cases, action-oriented roles were displayed considerably. Obviously, tight time targets and high
workload assigned to design teams may be the reason for this tendency. Among the task-oriented
role types, IMP and CF roles were more popular than SH role. As mentioned in the literature, CFs
are required where task demands close concentration and a high degree of accuracy, while IMPs
are required where hardworking and systematic fashion of problem solving are needed (refer
Table 1). Design teams in the construction industry encounter both these mentioned situations,
and therefore additional presentation of IMPs and CFs are justifiable. Again, it was noticed
that these two roles have been played by the members who have a fitting functional role.
Mostly, engineers and architects who are dealing with detailing had a tendency toward these
two roles. The presence of SH role was considerably low in all the cases. According to the structural engineer of Case A, SH role is not required for a design team as it may lead to interpersonal
conflicts. Another fact which became apparent from Case A regarding SH role was that the
members are reluctant to adopt this role, as all the members in these teams are at equal levels.
However, quantity surveyor of Case B and the team leader of Case C who were senior
members of each team have actively performed the SH role.
3.3.3
Cerebral roles
Findings which emerged through Cross-case analysis regarding cerebral roles (Monitor
Evaluator – ME and Plant – PL) are discussed below. In Case B, any of the cerebral roles
were not presented and project also did not have a necessity for cerebral roles as it was a repetition
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
15
type of project. But, in Cases A and C, they were presented at a considerable level and it was
higher in Case C. The reason could be that the project in Case C had a higher complexity and
thus required more creativity and high critical thinking ability. According to the literature, PLs
are needed to generate proposals and solve complex problems (refer Table 1). In Case C, the architect, interior designer and electrical engineer played the PL role, whereas in Case A, it was only
the electrical engineer. In both of Cases A and C, ME role was adapted by the members who were
involved in decision-making. The literature suggested that MEs are required when success or
failure of a job hinges on a relatively small number of crunch decisions (refer Table 1). Accordingly, in both these cases, ME role was played by the quantity surveyor and structural engineer,
whose job is more associated with critical decisions. These findings show that cerebral roles have
been correctly adapted by the team members as per the project requirements and fit with their
functional roles.
Further, it was apparent that members who performed as team leaders of all three cases have
adapted leadership roles, either CO or SH. The architect of Case A and Senior Architect of Case B
were the team leaders and both of them showed a very high preference for coordinator role. The
team leader of Case C showed a high preference for shaper role.
All in all, empirical findings revealed that the members had naturally taken up more than one
team role despite their functional roles. Generally, it ranged between two to four. This result is in
line with Senior (1997) who demonstrated that individuals will not only bring the characteristics
of their functional roles to their activities as members of teams but also take up one or more team
roles, naturally. But, they have adopted these roles so as to match with the team settings under
which they operate and the requirements of the projects as well in a way that it suits with the functional roles and responsibilities assigned to them in the particular team. Mostly, action-oriented
and cerebral roles have been adapted by members so as to fit with their functional roles and associated responsibilities, whereas people-oriented roles were closer with the team setting under which
they operate.
According to team role balance definition, all the three teams in the selected cases were imbalanced. Therefore, interviews were focused to explore how the three team performance elements
were affected by this team role imbalance, and the results obtained during the second stage of the
study are discussed next.
3.4 RQ 3: Team role balance and team performance
According to case studies, there is some sort of effect from team role imbalance to the team performance with regard to all three elements of team performance which are namely content, process and
behaviours. But, the next finding that became apparent from the empirical study is that there are
several other factors influencing team performance. Major factors which emerged through three
cases are tight time targets, workload, project requirements, restrictions from client’s side and
less believing in teamwork by team members. Table 11 summarises these findings. The first
column of Table 11, represents the team performance issues identified by cases as affected by
team role balance under three elements of team performance; content, process and behaviours.
The second column which is again sub-divided into three shows the cases in which the relevant
factors emerged. The third column indicates the other factors which led to the same team performance issue (this represents only the factors that were revealed from cases as a by-product and may
not fully represent all factors which could cause the particular team performance issue). Finally, the
fourth column indicates the cases in which each factor was found.
The content of Table 11 should be read as follows: for example, under the content measures,
difficulties in incorporating changes became apparent as a team performance issue that is influenced by imbalanced teams. But, incorporating changes were influenced by some other factors
16
Table 11.
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Summary of findings – team performance vs. team role balance.
Team performance issues due to team role
imbalance
Content
Difficulties in incorporating changes
Disruptions to team’s progress of work
Lacking of drive towards achieving its
purpose and work strategies
Process
Less participation and leadership during
discussions
Poor communication and coordination
More time for agreeing decisions
Uncertainty in critical decisions
Difficulties in taking accurate and strategic
judgments
Less eagerness to revisit and revise the
decisions
Behaviours
Lack of interdependency
Slow to respond to new possibilities
Arising
cases
Arising
cases
A
B
C
A
B
p
p p
p
p
p
p
p
Time targets
Capacity of managing the team
Finalised decisions
p p Extent of work finished
Work load of the members
Poor communication
Available procedure
Political intervention
Number of projects handling
simultaneously
Separation of departments
p
p p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
p
Less ability to come into team conclusions
and decisions
Lack recognition for their contributions
Lack of collaboration and participation
Other factors influencing
(as emerged through cases)
p
p
Pressure of other works
Separation of departments
Lack of single point responsibility
High work load
p p Concentration on time targets
p p Experience
Decision-making authority given
p
Less eagerness to revisit and revise
the decisions
p p
Seniors
Extent of finished work
Procedures
Work load
C
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p p
p
Poor communication and
coordination
Less commitment to teamwork
p
p
Client’s budget
Restrictions from client
p
Time available
p
Expression required by the
building
Lack of interest of the senior
members
p p
Complexity of the issue
Better understanding on the project
p p Tight time targets
p p organisational culture
p
Seniority
p
Extent of division of tasks due to
Scale of project
p
Specialisation on different areas
Involvement in other projects
Less team work
Tight time targets
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
(Continued)
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
Table 11.
17
Continued.
Team performance issues due to team role
imbalance
Arising
cases
A
Less collaboration and participation in the
later stages
Lack with team cohesion
Damage to mutual trust
p
p
B C
p p
Other factors influencing
(as emerged through cases)
Arising
cases
A
Dragging of project due to
different reasons
Priority for given projects
So many revisions
Time gaps such as tendering stage
Emergence of new interesting
projects
p p
Pressure of workload
p p Time targets
p
High work load
B
p
C
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
too. For example, when there are tight time targets and when work is nearly completed, the
members will feel reluctant to incorporate a change. The possibility of incorporating a change
is again influenced by the leaders’ capacity of managing the team and in the case of a finalised
decision. The rest of the table should be read similarly.
According to all these findings presented in Tables 5–10, team performance has some sort of effect
from the team role balance. But, at the same time, empirical findings revealed about the number of other
factors affecting team performance. Therefore, although there is some sort of effect from team role
balance to the team performance, the extent to which it is affected was difficult to isolate and find
out through this study and may require further research with a different research design.
4.
Discussion
From the empirical evidence, it is apparent that not all members in these three cases are fully
aware of team role concept and it would be beneficial for professionals in design teams if they
are better educated about it during the learning process, before entering into the industry.
In all the three cases, the composition of design teams were decided mainly based on the functional roles and not based on team roles. Types of functional roles required for a project were
decided based on the requirements of the project and the sufficient number of professionals from
each discipline is appointed to the team based on the scale and capacity required by the project
where a minimum number have not been indicated by the client. Cornick and Mather (1999)
stated that the general composition of the project team in construction is very clear due to the traditional functional roles required for any project, and case study findings also confirmed the fact.
Further, empirical findings showed that team selection is again dependent on the factors such as
special requirements of the project, experience of the members, qualifications required, availability
of human resources, recommendations and workload. These research findings are in line with the
study of Fryer et al. (2004) which pointed out that project teams are not usually put together in a
systematic way and mostly it depends on who is available (and when), who has the necessary
experience for this particular type of building, who recommends whom and so on. It is apparent
that these factors act as barriers to consider team roles during the team selection.
Literature findings suggested that even the members are assigned to teams based on their functional roles, they will also take up one or more team roles, naturally. Empirical study also revealed
that in all the three cases, all the members showed different preferences for different team roles and
had taken up more than one (two to four) team roles besides their functional roles. However, they
18
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
have adopted these roles so as to match with the team settings under which they operate and the
requirements of the projects as well in a way that it suits with the functional roles and responsibilities assigned to them in the particular team. Another fact apparent from the empirical findings was
that even though members had showed preference for certain role, they did not actively play it
within the team if they were not given the relevant authority and if it does not match with the
team setup they operate. Hence, it seems that team roles of the design team members in these
cases could be based on their personal propensities, but have adjusted as explained in the literature
which mentioned that one’s ‘team role behaviour’ is not fixed by individual personalities, but could
be changed by situational factors and also individual learning patterns.
As revealed by the literature synthesis, the central tenet of Belbin’s theories is that the more
balanced a team is in terms of the spread of naturally occurring team roles, the greater the propensity for it to be high performing (Senior, 1997). According to Belbin (1993), for a team to be successful and effective, the presence of all nine diverse roles needs to be apparent without
duplicating, and so the team is called a balanced team. In this study, all the three cases considered
were imbalanced according to this team role balance definition, and team performance issues,
with regard to all content, process and behaviour elements, were identified in these unbalanced
teams. But, the next major fact which became apparent from the empirical findings is that
there are several other factors affecting team performance such as tight time targets, workload,
project requirements, restrictions from client’s side, less belief in team work by team members
and so on. Hence, the effect on team performance particularly by team role imbalance was difficult to differentiate and to be figured out through this study.
However, empirical evidence suggest that construction projects may need different types of
team roles depending on different situations associated with it and so duplications and omissions
of certain team roles are possible within a construction design teams based on particular project
requirements and other situational and environmental factors. Therefore, team members and team
selectors should be made knowledgeable on the concept and how to deal accordingly. The next
section discusses the conclusions and recommendations arising from the present study.
5.
Conclusions
This research study focused on exploring how Belbin (1993) team roles exist and affects the performance of construction design teams in Sri Lanka using three case studies. The key findings and
their conclusions are presented here.
5.1. Awareness on team role concept
In the case studies, although members believed that having a proper knowledge about the concept
of team roles would be beneficial to construction professionals, it was apparent that the team
members were not fully aware of team role theories through their education and training and
had only experienced its need, while practicing.
5.2.
Formation of design teams
As discussed in Section 3.2, design teams in the construction industry were mainly formed based
on the functional roles rather than team roles. Further, team selection was dependent on several
other factors such as special requirements of the project, experience of the members, qualifications required, availability of human resources, recommendations and workload of members.
These factors are essential in order to provide required technical capacities and knowledge to
Architectural Engineering and Design Management
19
carry out the required functions by each member. However, these factors at the same time have
acted as barriers to consider team roles in forming design teams.
5.3
Team roles
As discussed in Section 3.3, members who were selected for design teams, mainly based on their
functional roles, had naturally taken up more than one team roles (two to four) when they were
assigned to a team. They showed different preferences for different team roles. Team members
had adapted these team roles so as to match with the functional roles and responsibilities assigned
to them in the particular team, team settings under which they operate and the requirements of the
projects. Mostly, action-oriented and cerebral roles have been adopted by members so as to fit
with their functional roles and associated responsibilities, whereas people-oriented roles were
closely associated with the team setting under which they operate. Although action-oriented
and people-oriented roles generally appeared in all three teams, cerebral roles seemed to be connected more with the project requirements. These findings confirm that team role behaviour is not
something fixed by personal propensity, but it is something which could be modified and adjusted
accordingly by team members themselves according to situational factors from environment as
well as by experience and role learning.
5.4 Influence from team role balance to team performance
As mentioned in Section 3.4, although case study data provided that there is some sort of effect
from team role balance to the team performance, at the same time, the number of other factors also
appeared to have considerable effect on team performance. Hence, the exact effect on team performance by team role balance was difficult to differentiate and figured out. If this theory was
tested in a more controlled environment using a method such as controlled experiments, the
results could be clearer. However, suitability of such a method is again questionable owing to
the complexity and interconnection of the factors that affect on team performance as found
through this research study.
All in all, the following implications can be drawn to construction industry. Case studies revealed
that forming balanced teams (according to the team role balance definition stated in Section 1.3) is
practically difficult for construction design teams. Because, mostly in construction project teams,
team roles will be duplicated with large teams and team roles required for different project types
is different (e.g., when complexity is high more members should play PL or ME role). Also, the
design team selection is dependent on functional roles of the members, and several other factors
as discussed in detail in Section 3.2 tend to restrict the consideration of team roles in team selection.
Further, empirical evidence provided that although individuals are assigned to teams based on functional roles, they learn to play the required team role as well as modify them with their experiences
and situational factors in environment. Therefore, what should be considered by the construction
industry practitioners in adopting team role concept is not necessary to form balanced teams in
terms of team roles, but to improve role learning (learning to play a needed role). Similarly, recognising one another’s team roles would help members to minimise internal conflicts and allow using the
members’ talents to the best advantage of the team. Hence, team roles of the members can be used as
a tool by the design teams so as to have effective execution of their work, effective management of
their relationships with its environment and also to maintain the team’s strength in meeting social
needs of individuals who form the team. Therefore, proper knowledge on team role concept
should be given to professionals working in design teams through education and training. Also,
arrangements within design organisations should be made to house the staff minimising the physical
dispersion in order to improve teamworking capacity and successful team role behaviour.
20
S. Senaratne and S. Gunawardane
Since this research is based on case study method, it is limited in statistical generalisability.
However, it is hoped that the findings can be theoretically generalised to similar contexts.
More case studies are needed to identify which team roles facilitate different functional roles
and which team roles are needed to be played at different stages of a construction project.
References
Arditi, D., & Gunaydin, H. (1998). Factors that affect process quality in the life cycle of building projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), 194–203.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann publications.
Belbin, R. M. (2004). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
publications, (2004 – Republication of 1981).
Chan, A. P. C., & Tam, C. M. (2000). Factors affecting the quality of building projects in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17(4/5), 423–441.
Chong, E. (2007). Role balance and team development: A study of team role characteristics underlying high
and low performing teams. Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management, 8(3), 202–217.
Constructing Excellence. (2004). Effective teamwork: A best practice guide for the construction industry
[online]. Retrieved from: http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/document/Teamwork_Guide.
pdf
Cornick, T., & Mather, J. (1999). Construction project teams: Making them work profitability. London:
Thomas Telford Publishing.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction. London: Sage
publications.
Fryer, B. G., Fryer, M., Ellis, R., & Egbu, C. (2004). The practice of construction management: People and
business performance. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Macmillan, S. (2001). Managing an interdisciplinary design team effectively. In R. Spence, P. Kirby, & S.
Macmillan (Eds.), Interdisciplinary design in practice (pp. 187–201). London: Thomas Telford.
Partington, D., & Harris, H. (1999). Team role balance and team performance: An empirical study. Journal of
Management Development, 18(7/8), 694 –705.
Pectas, S. T., & Putlar, M. (2006). Modeling detailed information flows in building design with the parameter
based design structure matrix. Design Studies, 27(1), 99– 122.
Pollock, M. (2009). Investigating the relationship between team role diversity and team performance in
information systems teams. Journal of Information Technology Management, 20(1), 42– 55.
Pryke, S., & Smyth, H. (2006). The management of complex projects. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rajendran, M. (2005). Analysis of team effectiveness in software development teams working on hardware
and software environments using Belbin self-perception inventory. Journal of Management
Development, 24(8), 738 –753.
Senaratne, S., & Hapuarachchi, A. (2009). Construction project teams and their development: Case studies in
Sri Lanka. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(4), 215–224.
Senior, B. (1997). Team roles and team performance: Is there ‘really’ a link? Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70(3), 241 –258.
Sommerville, J., & Dalziel, S. (1998). Project teambuilding – the applicability of Belbin’s team-role selfperception inventory. International Journal of Project Management, 16(3), 165–171.
Steward, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of
intra team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2),
135 –148.
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking
mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 343–365.
Water, H. V. D., Ahaus, K., & Rozier, R. (2008). Team roles, team balance and performance. Journal of
Management Development, 27(5), 499– 512.
Wong, Z. (2007). Human factors in project management: Concepts, tools and techniques for inspiring teamwork and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yeh, E., Smith, C., Jennings, C., & Castro, N. (2006). Team building: A 3-dimensional teamwork model.
Team Performance Management, 12(5/6), 192 –197.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.