Cooperation mechanism for team-work based multi-agent system in dynamic scheduling through meta-heuristics

This paper describes a Multi-agent Scheduling System that assumes the existence of several Machines Agents (which are decision-making entities) distributed inside the Manufacturing System that interact and cooperate with other agents in order to obtain optimal or near-optimal global performances. Agents have to manage their internal behaviors and their relationships with other agents via cooperative negotiation in accordance with business policies defined by the user manager. Some Multi Agent Systems (MAS) organizational aspects are considered. An original Cooperation Mechanism for a Team-work based Architecture is proposed to address dynamic scheduling using Meta-Heuristics.

Teams make it work : How team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams

Resumen tomado de la publicaci??n

Employee work motivation and discretionary work effort

The focus of this thesis is discretionary work effort, that is, work effort that is voluntary, is above and beyond what is minimally required or normally expected to avoid reprimand or dismissal, and is organisationally functional. Discretionary work effort is an important construct because it is known to affect individual performance as well as organisational efficiency and effectiveness. To optimise organisational performance and ensure their long term competitiveness and sustainability, firms need to be able to induce their employees to work at or near their peak level. To work at or near their peak level, individuals must be willing to supply discretionary work effort. Thus, managers need to understand the determinants of discretionary work effort. Nonetheless, despite many years of scholarly investigation across multiple disciplines, considerable debate still exists concerning why some individuals supply only minimal work effort whilst others expend effort well above and beyond what is minimally required of them (Le. they supply discretionary work effort). Even though it is well recognised that discretionary work effort is important for promoting organisational performance and effectiveness, many authors claim that too little is being done by managers to increase the discretionary work effort of their employees. In this research, I have adopted a multi-disciplinary approach towards investigating the role of monetary and non-monetary work environment characteristics in determining discretionary work effort. My central research questions were "What non-monetary work environment characteristics do employees perceive as perks (perquisites) and irks (irksome work environment characteristics)?" and "How do perks, irks and monetary rewards relate to an employee's level of discretionary work effort?" My research took a unique approach in addressing these research questions. By bringing together the economics and organisational behaviour (OB) literatures, I identified problems with the current definition and conceptualisations of the discretionary work effort construct. I then developed and empirically tested a more concise and theoretically-based definition and conceptualisation of this construct. In doing so, I disaggregated discretionary work effort to include three facets - time, intensity and direction - and empirically assessed if different classes of work environment characteristics have a differential pattern of relationships with these facets. This analysis involved a new application of a multi-disciplinary framework of human behaviour as a tool for classifying work environment characteristics and the facets of discretionary work effort. To test my model of discretionary work effort, I used a public sector context in which there has been limited systematic empirical research into work motivation. The program of research undertaken involved three separate but interrelated studies using mixed methods. Data on perks, irks, monetary rewards and discretionary work effort were gathered from employees in 12 organisations in the local government sector in Western Australia. Non-monetary work environment characteristics that should be associated with discretionary work effort were initially identified through a review of the literature. Then, a qualitative study explored what work behaviours public sector employees perceive as discretionary and what perks and irks were associated with high and low levels of discretionary work effort. Next, a quantitative study developed measures of these perks and irks. A Q-sorttype procedure and exploratory factor analysis were used to develop the perks and irks measures. Finally, a second quantitative study tested the relationships amongst perks, irks, monetary rewards and discretionary work effort. Confirmatory factor analysis was firstly used to confirm the factor structure of the measurement models. Correlation analysis, regression analysis and effect-size correlation analysis were used to test the hypothesised relationships in the proposed model of discretionary work effort. The findings confirmed five hypothesised non-monetary work environment characteristics as common perks and two of three hypothesised non-monetary work environment characteristics as common irks. Importantly, they showed that perks, irks and monetary rewards are differentially related to the different facets of discretionary work effort. The convergent and discriminant validities of the perks and irks constructs as well as the time, intensity and direction facets of discretionary work effort were generally confirmed by the research findings. This research advances the literature in several ways: (i) it draws on the Economics and OB literatures to redefine and reconceptualise the discretionary work effort construct to provide greater definitional clarity and a more complete conceptualisation of this important construct; (ii) it builds on prior research to create a more comprehensive set of perks and irks for which measures are developed; (iii) it develops and empirically tests a new motivational model of discretionary work effort that enhances our understanding of the nature and functioning of perks and irks and advances our ability to predict discretionary work effort; and (iv) it fills a substantial gap in the literature on public sector work motivation by revealing what work behaviours public sector employees perceive as discretionary and what work environment characteristics are associated with their supply of discretionary work effort. Importantly, by disaggregating discretionary work effort this research provides greater detail on how perks, irks and monetary rewards are related to the different facets of discretionary work effort. Thus, from a theoretical perspective this research also demonstrates the conceptual meaningfulness and empirical utility of investigating the different facets of discretionary work effort separately. From a practical perspective, identifying work environment factors that are associated with discretionary work effort enhances managers' capacity to tap this valuable resource. This research indicates that to maximise the potential of their human resources, managers need to address perks, irks and monetary rewards. It suggests three different mechanisms through which managers might influence discretionary work effort and points to the importance of training for both managers and non-managers in cultivating positive interpersonal relationships.

Self-directed student work groups using blended learning

This paper provides a description of an innovative teaching approach designed to facilitate student work groups using a blended learning approach that incorporates both traditional face-to-face teaching methods and an online student work group facility. The teaching approach is designed to accommodate a large introductory human resource management subject positioned within an undergraduate business degree.

The effect of work-integrated learning in highlighting the complexity of work : a pilot study of work self-efficacy

This pilot study aims to examine the effect of work-integrated learning (WIL) on work self-efficacy (WSE) for undergraduate students from the Queensland University of Technology. A WSE instrument was used to examine the seven subscales of WSE. These were; learning, problem solving, pressure, role expectations, team work, sensitivity and work politics. The results of this pilot study revealed that, overall the WSE scores were highest when the students’ did not participate in the WIL unit (comparison group) in comparison to the WIL group. The current paper suggests that WSE scores were changed as a result of WIL participation. These findings open a new path for future studies allowing them to explore the relationship between WIL and the specific subscales of WSE.

Calculating Team Character Strengths

Individuals need to have completed the VIA Character Strengths Survey prior to this activity as they will need to know their top 5 'signature' Character Strengths. This Excel Spreadsheet can be used to look at the Team Culture and to align team members' top Strengths with 7 key Team Functions

Enhancing and assessing group and team learning in architecture and related design contexts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTeamwork skills are essential in the design industry where practitioners negotiate often-conflicting design options in multi-disciplinary teams. Indeed, many of the bodies that accredit design courses explicitly list teamwork skills as essential attributes of design graduates e.g., the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) of the United States and the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). In addition to the need to meet the demands of the accrediting bodies, there are many reasons for the ubiquitous use of teamwork assignments in design schools. For instance, teamwork learning is seen as being representative of work in practice where design is nearly always a collaborative activity. Learning and teaching in teamwork contexts in design education are not without particular challenges. In particular, two broad issues have been identified: first, many students leave academia without having been taught the knowledge and skills of how to design in teams; second, teaching, assessment and assignment design need to be better informed by a clear understanding of what leads to effective teamwork and the learning of teamwork skills. In recognition of the lack of a structured approach to integrating teamwork learning into the curricula of design programs, this project set out to answer three primary research questions: • How do we teach teamwork skills in the context of design? • How do we assess teamwork skills?• How do design students best learn teamwork skills?In addition, four more specific questions were investigated:1. Is there a common range of learning objectives for group-and-team-work in architecture and related design disciplines that will enable the teaching of consistent and measurable outcomes?2. Do group and team formation methods, learning styles and team-role preferences impact students’ academic and course satisfaction outcomes?3. What combinations of group-and-team formation methods, teaching and assessment models significantly improve learning outcomes?4. For design students across different disciplines with different learning styles and cultural origins, are there significant differences in performance, student satisfaction (as measured through questionnaires and unit evaluations), group-and-team working abilities and student participation?To elucidate these questions, a design-based research methodology was followed comprising an iterative series of enquiries: (a) A literature review was completed to investigate: what constitutes effective teamwork, what contributes to effectiveness in teams, what leads to positive design outcomes for teams, and what leads to effective learning in teams. The review encompassed a range of contexts: from work-teams in corporate settings, to professional design teams, to education outside of and within the design disciplines. The review informed a theoretical framework for understanding what factors impact the effectiveness of student design teams. (b) The validity of this multi-factorial Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams was tested via surveys of educators’ teaching practices and attitudes, and of students’ learning experiences. 638 students and 68 teachers completed surveys: two pilot surveys for participants at the four partner institutions, which then informed two national surveys completed by participants from the majority of design schools across Australia. (c) The data collected provided evidence for 22 teamwork factors impacting team effectiveness in student design teams. Pedagogic responses and strategies to these 22 teamwork factors were devised, tested and refined via case studies, focus groups and workshops. (d) In addition, 35 educators from a wide range of design schools and disciplines across Australia attended two National Teaching Symposiums. The first symposium investigated the wider conceptualisation of teamwork within the design disciplines, and the second focused on curriculum level approaches to structuring the teaching of teamwork skills identified in the Framework.The Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams identifies 22 factors impacting effective teamwork, along with teaching responses and strategies that design educators might use to better support student learning. The teamwork factors and teaching strategies are categorised according to three groups of input (Task Characteristics, Individual Level Factors and Team Level Factors), two groups of processes (Teaching Practice & Support Structures and Team Processes), and three categories of output (Task Performance, Teamwork Skills, and Attitudinal Outcomes). Eight of the 22 teamwork factors directly relate to the skills that need to be developed in students, one factor relates to design outputs, and the other thirteen factors inform pedagogies that can be designed for better learning outcomes. In Table 10 of Section 4, we outline which of the 22 teamwork factors pertain to each of five stakeholder groups (curriculum leaders, teachers, students, employers and the professional bodies); thus establishing who will make best use the information and recommendations we make. In the body of this report we summarise the 22 teamwork factors and teaching strategies informed by the Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams, and give succinct recommendations arising from them. This material is covered in depth by the project outputs. For instance, the teaching and assessment strategies will be expanded upon in a projected book on Teaching Teamwork in Design. The strategies are also elucidated by examples of good practice presented in our case studies, and by Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students. Moreover, the project website (teamwork-in-design.com index.html=""> visited by representatives of stakeholder groups in Australia and Canada), is seeding a burgeoning community of practice that promises dissemination, critical evaluation and the subsequent refinement of our materials, tools, strategies and recommendations. The following three primary outputs have been produced by the project in answer to the primary research questions:1. A theoretical Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams;2. Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students (available from the website);3. Case studies of good/innovative practices in teaching and assessing teamwork in design;In addition, five secondary outputs/outcomes have been produced that provide more nuanced responses:4. Detailed recommendations for the professional accrediting bodies and curriculum leaders;5. Online survey data (from over 700 participants), plus Team Effectiveness Scale to determine the factors influencing effective learning and successful outputs for student design teams;6. A community of practice in policy, programs, practice and dialogue;7. A detailed book proposal (with sample chapter), submitted to prospective publishers, on Teaching Teamwork in Design; 8. An annotated bibliography (accessed via the project website) on learning, teaching and assessing teamwork.The project has already had an international impact. As well as papers presented in Canada and New Zealand, the surveys were participated in by six Canadian schools of architecture, whose teaching leaders also provided early feedback on the project aims and objectives during visits made to them by the project leader. In addition, design schools in Vancouver, Canada, and San Diego in the USA have already utilised the Teacher’s Manual, and in February 2014 the project findings were discussed at Tel Aviv University in a forum focusing on the challenges for sustainability in architectural education.teamwork-in-design.com>

CAS: A tool for improving autonomous work

The EHEA proposes a student-centered teaching model. Therefore, it seems necessary to actively involve the students in the teaching-learning process. Increasing the active participation of the students is not always easy in mathematical topics, since, when the students just enter the University, their ability to carry out autonomous mathematical work is scarce. In this paper we present some experiences related with the use of Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). All the experiences are designed in order to develop some mathematical competencies and mainly self-learning, the use of technology and team-work. The experiences include some teachers? proposals including: small projects to be executed in small groups, participation in competitions, the design of different CAS-Toolboxes, etc. The results obtained in the experiences, carried out with different groups of students from different engineering studies at different universities, makes us slightly optimistic about the educational value of the model.

Body Percussion and Team Building through the BAPNE Method

BAPNE Method is a method based on cognitive stimulation integrating music and movement through body percussion. The aim of this research is to explore its whole potential as a tool to build teams. Team building is a philosophy for work design, and since over two decades ago, it defends that obtaining a high performance and organizing efficiency is more useful to perceive employees as interdependent members in a team of work than individuals ones. From this viewpoint, this research advocates that BAPNE Method’s body percussion practice will have an impact on this vision of team work directly. For its own characteristics, body percussion stimulates ways of contact in movement, which ease social ties and, especially, promote group cohesion. Through social, body and, affective dimension; BAPNE Method is capable of developing a shared vision and a single aim, to stimulate team work identity and an atmosphere of trust; and finally, to improve individual communication and satisfaction levels in group tasks.

Do stressful times call for team-based working? A study of psychiatric nurses in UK mental healthcase

Background: Team-based working is now an inherent part of effective health care delivery. Previous research has identified that team working is associated with positive mental health and well-being outcomes for individuals operating in an effective team environment. This is a particularly important topic in the health services context, although little empirical attention has been paid to mental-health services. Psychiatric nurses work on a day-to-day basis with a particularly stressful and demanding client group in an environment which is characterised by high demands, uncertainty, and limited resources. This paper specifically focuses on psychiatric nurses working in National Health Service (NHS) and casts some light on the ways in which effective team-based working can help to alleviate a number of occupational stressors and strains. Method: A questionnaire method (2005 NHS Staff Survey) was employed to collect data from 6655 psychiatric nurses from 64 different NHS Trusts. The hypotheses were concerned with four overall measures from the survey; effective team working, occupational stress, work pressure and social support. Hypothesis 1 stated that effective team working will have a significant negative relationship with occupational stress and work pressure. Further, Hypothesis 2 stated that social support from supervisors and co-workers will moderate this relationship. Findings: Data was treated with a series of regression analyses. For Hypothesis 1, working in a real team did have main effects on work pressure and accounted for 1.6 per cent of the variance. Using the Nagelkerke R square value, working in a real team also had main effects on occupational stress an accounted for approximately 2.8 per cent of the variance. Further, the Exp (B) value of 0.662 suggests that the odds of suffering from occupational stress are cut by 33.8 per cent when a psychiatric nurse works in a real team. Results failed to provide support for Hypothesis 2. The analysis then went on to adopt a unique approach for assessing the extent of real team-based working, distinguishing between real teams, and a number of pseudo team typologies, as well as the absence of teamwork all together. As was hypothesised, results demonstrated that psychiatric nurses working in real teams (ones with clear objectives, where-by team members work closely with one another to achieve team objectives and meet regularly to discuss team effectiveness and how it can be improved) experienced the lowest levels of stress and work pressure of the sample. However, contrary to prediction, results indicated that psychiatric nurses working in any type of pseudo team actually experienced significantly higher levels of stress and work pressure than those who did not report as working in a team at all. Discussion: These findings have serious implications for NHS Mental Health Trusts, which may not be implementing, structuring and managing their nursing teams adequately. Indeed, results suggest that poorly-structured team work may actually facilitate stress and pressure in the workplace. Conversely, well-structured real teams serve to reduce stress and work pressure, which in turn not only enhances the working lives and well-being of psychiatric nurses, but also greatly improves the service that the NHS provides to its users.

Stressful times call for team-based measures:psychiatric nursing in the UK National Health Service

Background: Team-based working is now an inherent part of effective health care delivery. Previous research has identified that team working is associated with positive mental health and well-being outcomes for individuals operating in an effective team environment. This is a particularly important topic in the health services context, although little empirical attention has been paid to mental-health services. Psychiatric nurses work on a day-to-day basis with a particularly stressful and demanding client group in an environment which is characterised by high demands, uncertainty, and limited resources. This paper specifically focuses on psychiatric nurses working in National Health Service (NHS) and casts some light on the ways in which effective team-based working can help to alleviate a number of occupational stressors and strains. Method: A questionnaire method (2005 NHS Staff Survey) was employed to collect data from 6655 psychiatric nurses from 64 different NHS Trusts. The hypotheses were concerned with four overall measures from the survey; effective team working, occupational stress, work pressure and social support. Hypothesis 1 stated that effective team working will have a significant negative relationship with occupational stress and work pressure. Further, Hypothesis 2 stated that social support from supervisors and co-workers will moderate this relationship. Findings: Data was treated with a series of regression analyses. For Hypothesis 1, working in a real team did have main effects on work pressure and accounted for 1.6 per cent of the variance. Using the Nagelkerke R square value, working in a real team also had main effects on occupational stress an accounted for approximately 2.8 per cent of the variance. Further, the Exp (B) value of 0.662 suggests that the odds of suffering from occupational stress are cut by 33.8 per cent when a psychiatric nurse works in a real team. Results failed to provide support for Hypothesis 2. The analysis then went on to adopt a unique approach for assessing the extent of real team-based working, distinguishing between real teams, and a number of pseudo team typologies, as well as the absence of teamwork all together. As was hypothesised, results demonstrated that psychiatric nurses working in real teams (ones with clear objectives, where-by team members work closely with one another to achieve team objectives and meet regularly to discuss team effectiveness and how it can be improved) experienced the lowest levels of stress and work pressure of the sample. However, contrary to prediction, results indicated that psychiatric nurses working in any type of pseudo team actually experienced significantly higher levels of stress and work pressure than those who did not report as working in a team at all. Discussion: These findings have serious implications for NHS Mental Health Trusts, which may not be implementing, structuring and managing their nursing teams adequately. Indeed, results suggest that poorly-structured team work may actually facilitate stress and pressure in the workplace. Conversely, well-structured real teams serve to reduce stress and work pressure, which in turn not only enhances the working lives and well-being of psychiatric nurses, but also greatly improves the service that the NHS provides to its users.