CG流程系统分析_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
CG流程系统分析
&&CG流程系统软件分析
阅读已结束，下载本文需要
想免费下载本文？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢项目任务进度管理工具 - AceTeamwork/项目任务进度管理
　　AceTeamwork（简称为：ATW） 是一款基于 web 的项目任务及团队协作管理套件，利用 Java 语言开发， 集成了任务管理、项目管理、团队管理以及工作日志管理等功能。 作为一个适用于各领域任务管理、工时收集、团队协作与即时沟通的企业级解决方案， 可以为您同时协调和管理数以百计的项目和团队成员，而软件所具有的成熟，可靠和友好特性， 将不再让您在易用性和功能性的选择上左右为难。
项目任务管理目标/项目任务进度管理
　　1. 任意创建与项目和客户关联的新服务任务，并指派给员工完成；
　　2. 任务执行者可以定期或不定期的汇报和更新任务进度，反馈任务问题；
　　3. 任务负责人可以监控任务完成情况，考评任务执行者的绩效；
　　4. 员工也可以自行制定个人任务计划，或主动申请任务；
　　5. 任务的创建、更新、评估等可以通过流程控制和审核，保证数据的真实性。
管理软件的基本要求/项目任务进度管理
　　1. 系统功能不能太过繁杂，希望能够专一一些为好；
　　2. 软件功能操作简单易懂，不要花费大家过多的时间；
　　3. 软件界面尽可能美化些，便于项目成员喜欢上系统，而不是面对所谓的“企业软件”= 枯燥、呆板的界面。
最优的项目任务管理软件/项目任务进度管理
　　AceTeamwork 项目任务进度和团队沟通与协作管理软件
　　在国内最具口碑的一套管理软件，主要解决公司项目管理过程中： 项目任务进度，团队沟通与协作，项目工时统计，员工忙闲监控，项目人力成本和非人力成本核算与控制等方面的问题。
　　其工时管理设计思想符合国际标准，并融合众多国内客户需求，且更贴近和符合国内用户的使用习惯，尤其界面的友好性和功能操作简易性，堪称国际领先的。
AceTeamwork可让您获取的收益/项目任务进度管理
　　在应用 AceTeamwork 软件后，据不完全统计，可以产生如下收益：
　　1. 的时间和参与人数减少了，沟通成本得以大幅减低。因 AceTeamwork 的成功应用使得其公司项目沟通成本降低约 21% 以上；
　　2. 未被会议和未明确任务所占用的项目成员，更多投入到公司其它项目中，其员工工作效率和对项目的贡献率提高约 35% 以上。
&|&相关影像
互动百科的词条（含所附图片）系由网友上传，如果涉嫌侵权，请与客服联系，我们将按照法律之相关规定及时进行处理。未经许可，禁止商业网站等复制、抓取本站内容；合理使用者，请注明来源于www.baike.com。
登录后使用互动百科的服务，将会得到个性化的提示和帮助，还有机会和专业认证智愿者沟通。
此词条还可添加&
编辑次数：2次
参与编辑人数：2位
最近更新时间： 08:48:25
贡献光荣榜
扫码下载APPTeamwork Skill 和 Leadership Skill 有什么不同_百度知道
Teamwork Skill 和 Leadership Skill 有什么不同
我有更好的答案
从架构来说，虽然每个Team里面也有领导和下属Teamwork skill 是一个团队里面。从影响方式上来看，Teamwork skill主要是成员之间通过沟通和合作来共同完成一项任务，而Leadership则更倾向于领导对下属的影响，比如在distributed leadership，就是强调领导对下属的鼓励和支持来让下属达到目标，比如transformational leadership，每个成员之间的一起完成任务的技能，而Leadership skill则是指领导和下属之间的技能，与目标是直接相关，而leadership则是领导-下属-任务这样的关系，Teamwork更趋向平等。而Leadership则从概念上就承认了阶级性。从与目标的关系上来说，一般情况下，teamwork中每个人都直接分担一定的任务
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
teamwork的相关知识
换一换
回答问题，赢新手礼包
个人、企业类
违法有害信息,请在下方选择后提交
色情、暴力
我们会通过消息、邮箱等方式尽快将举报结果通知您。From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help
or discuss these issues on the . ()
This article's
may not adequately
its contents. To comply with Wikipedia's , please consider modifying the lead to
of the article's key points in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. (). (January 2017)
This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's . . The
may contain suggestions. (September 2017)
This article may lend
to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more , with details put in their proper context.
this issue before removing this message. (January 2018)
Van pushing
Hauling in a mooring line.
Rowing team.
Problem-solving: Strategy formulation
Problem-solving: Team coordination
A 2012 review of the academic literature found that the word "teamwork" has been used "as a catchall to refer to a number of behavioral processes and emergent states".
In , teamwork is "a dynamic process involving two or more healthcare professionals with complementary background and skills, sharing common health goals and exercising concerted physical and mental effort in assessing, planning, or evaluating patient care".[] Having followed a volatile trend in the past century, the societal diffusion and application of teamwork has shown a sharp increase since the late 1970s.
techniques may be used[] to provide
of the benefits of teamwork which are useful for justifying the concept. Health-care policy-makers[] increasingly advocate teamwork as a means of assuring quality and safety in the [] a committee of the
recommended in 2000 that
programs "establish interdisciplinary team training programs for providers that incorporate proven methods of team training, such as simulation."
In health care, a systematic
in 2008 concluded teamwork to be "a dynamic process involving two or more healthcare professionals with complementary backgrounds and skills, sharing common health goals and exercising concerted physical and mental effort in assessing, planning, or evaluating patient care." Elsewhere teamwork is defined[] as "those behaviours that facilitate effective team member interaction", with "" defined as "a group of two or more individuals who perform some work related task, interact with one another dynamically, have a shared past, have a foreseeable shared future, and share a common fate". Another definition for teamwork proposed[] in 2008 is "the interdependent components of performance required to effectively coordinate the performance of multiple individuals"; as such, teamwork is "nested within" the broader concept of team performance, which also includes individual-level taskwork.
When talking about teamwork, it is important to first properly define the term "team"—many people think they work in teams when really, they work in so-called pseudo teams—groups of co-workers put together and called a team, but without fulfilling basic requirements for effective teamwork. Basic requirements for effective teamwork are an adequate team size (best seems to be about 6-8 members); a clearly defined and measureable goal (such as the creation of a new product in innovative jobs, a high patient survival rate in healthcare jobs, or customer satisfaction in service-oriented jobs) (see also Motivation and Cohesion), as well as autonomy, authority and resources needed to fulfil the team goal. Furthermore, roles within the team should be clearly defined.
Researchers propose that team performance should be seen as a series of input-process-outcome-episodes that are defined as temporal cycles of goal-oriented activities. These episodes consist of action and transition phases. Action phases focus on activities that are directly related to goal achievement, while transition phases focus on the evaluation and/or the planning of activities to guide the goal accomplishment. Within these phases there can be distinguished between ten different processes arranged into three higher-level categories:
Researchers have identified 10 teamwork processes that fall into three categories:
transition process (between periods of action)
mission analysis
goal specification
strategy formulation
action process (when the team attempts to accomplish its goals and objectives)
monitoring progress toward goals
systems monitoring
team monitoring and backup behavior
coordination
interpersonal process (present in both action periods and transition periods)
conflict management
motivation and confidence building
affect management
Researchers have confirmed that performing teamwork generally works better when members of the team have experience working together due to enhanced coordination and communication. This appears partly due to a chemical called serotonin, which helps an individual to communicate better and think more positively.[] Serotonin is produced when an individual is in a situation where he/she is in comfortable environment. Teams run more efficiently when the individual members communicate with the other members.
As in a 2008 review, "team training promotes teamwork and enhances team performance." In specific, a 2014
of 45 published and unpublished studies concluded that team training is "useful for improving cognitive outcomes, affective outcomes, teamwork processes, and performance outcomes."
Some teams, especially those not composed according to the aforementioned standards, may perform poorly, that is, work less effectively than should be expected according to their members’ combined capacities. This is partly due to effects such as . In addition to that,
seems to be less efficient, and creativity can be lower in groups than a combination of individuals’ efforts may be. This is also partly due to process losses, that is, group energy that could otherwise be put into work
(e. g. creativity, thought processes) is needed for group processes. Even though there are some drawbacks to working in groups, it can also be beneficial. Some groups outperform what would be expected of their members’ combination of skills – these groups experience what is called social labouring (in contrast to social loafing). Social labouring occurs when there is a high motivation to fulfil the task, when there is a strong group identity, and also when members are of non-Western, collectivist cultures.
Problems solving: A single brain can’t bounce different ideas off of each other. Each team member has a responsibility to contribute equally and offer their unique perspective on a problem to arrive at the best possible solution. Teamwork can lead to better decisions, products, or services. The quality of teamwork may be effective by analyzing the following six components of
among team members: communication, coordination, balance of member contributions, mutual support, effort, and cohesion. In one study, teamwork quality as measured in this manner correlated with team performance in the areas of effectiveness (i.e., producing high quality work) and efficiency (i.e., meeting schedules and budgets). A 2008
also found a relationship between teamwork and team effectiveness. However, see also
for potential flaws of making decisions in groups and how to avoid the dangers of making decisions in groups.
Healthy competition: A healthy competition in groups can be used to motivate individuals and help the team excel.
Developing relationships: A team that continues to work together will eventually develop an increased level of bonding. This can help people avoid unnecessary conflicts since they have become well acquainted with each other through teamwork. Team members’ ratings of their satisfaction with a team is correlated with the level of teamwork processes present.
Everyone has unique qualities: Every team member can offer their unique knowledge and ability to help improve other team members. Through teamwork the sharing of these qualities will allow team members to be more productive in the future.
increase motivation: teamworking can lead to a high motivation level in a group due to increasing accountability for individual performance. When groups are being compared, members tend to become more ambitious to achieve higher levels of performance and results. providing groups with a comparison standard increases the performance level thus leading to members encouraging each other to work together simultaneously.
In healthcare: teamwork is associated with increased .
Teamwork may have an "unintended effect of fermenting hostility toward the managerial goal of making the teams fully self-managing." In one case study of a
manufacturer, a switch from
work (with bonuses given for individual performance) to teamwork (in which an individual's earnings depended on team performance) caused workers to resent having to monitor each other.
While most
over time and are not expected to perform directly, the term ‘action teams’ refers to teams that are build ad hoc to carry out a specific task immediately. Their members are usually specialists who must work together and often face unexpected events or emergencies (e.g. aviation crews, flight crews, ad hoc teams in healthcare organizations, crisis management teams). In contrast to other teams in the work context, action teams are characterized by low familiarity and no time for typical teambuilding activities. This is even amplified in situations where even after the formation team membership is not stable.
As noted in
a team's work pattern develops over time. One substantial type in this context are early interaction patterns, describing recurrent sets of communication within the team. Research has shown, that more effective action teams are characterized by early interaction patterns that can be described as more stable (enabling a better predictability and coordination) and involve more than one actor (indicating a better information sharing). The quality of work in action teams seems not to be related to the amount of interaction and interaction patterns, but rather its quality.
A top management team (TMT) is a specific form of team which typically consists of some of the top managers in a firm. However, there is no clear definition to what the top management team of an organization is. It is put together by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to work on a specific task. In working on this task, the team generally has a much higher responsibility and considerable autonomy than other forms of teams which have already been described.
The way TMTs are put together and work together as a team can greatly differ from other teams. This is mainly based on the fact that top managers have succeeded as individuals which often leads to a focus on functional team objectives rather than to working interdependently on a shared goal. TMTs consist of top managers from different functional areas of the firm, so they usually have different areas of expertise. As we learned, diversity and heterogeneity in teams can have a positive effect on team work. Nevertheless, there are also negative effects which have to be overcome as a team like not valuing different opinions and perspectives. A CEO that models valuing behavior and ensures the team has both a clear purpose and clear objectives can do just that. This also reduces social categorization effects because it leads to team members focusing more on their shared goals than on their differences.
The exchange of information during the working process is as important for TMTs as it is for all other kinds of teams. In order to work effectively, the team needs to understand how to communicate, share information, set goals, give feedback, manage conflict, engage in joint planning and task coordination and solve problems collaboratively. The CEO plays a key role in enabling the team to do so. He or she must take on the responsibility to coach the team and to reflect on their work.
A virtual team is defined as groups of coworkers that are assembled using a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish a variety of critical tasks (Townsend et al., 1998). The coworkers do not have to be dispersed by geographic or organizational circumstances although those factors make it more likely for a team to engage in team virtuality. There are basically three dimensions of team virtuality:
The extent to which team members use virtual facilities to coordinate or execute team processes
The amount of informational value provided by such tools
The synchronicity of team member virtual interaction
Every team can be described on a continuum concerning its virtuality, whereas virtuality is defined as the informational value a virtual tool conveys. The second point means that the less valuable information a tool provides, the more virtual it is. This refers to the way of communication as well as to the value of data that is conveyed. Concerning the synchronicity of a team's interaction one can distinguish between real time interaction which is called synchronous exchange of information whereas interaction that contains a time lag between is called asynchronous exchange of information.
Valentine, Melissa A., Ingrid M. Nembhard, and Amy C. Edmondson (April 12, 2012).
(PDF). Working Paper 11-116. Harvard Business School 2012.
. Merriam-Webster Dictionary online 2012.
Weiss, M.; Hoegl, M. (2015). "The History of Teamwork's Societal Diffusion: A Multi-Method Review". Small Group Research. 46 (6): 589–622. :.
Ezzamel, Mahmoud & Hugh Willmott (1998). "Accounting for Teamwork: a Critical Study of Group-Based Systems of Organizational Control". Administrative Science Quarterly. 43 (2): 358–396. :.
Kohn, Linda T.; Janet M. C Molla S. Donaldson, eds. (2000). . Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 14.  .
Xyrichis, Andreas & Emma Ream (2008). "Teamwork: a Concept Analysis". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 61 (2): 232–241. :.  .
Beaubien, J. M. & D. P. Baker (2004). . Quality & Safety in Health Care. 13 (Supplement 1): i51–i56. :.   .  .
Salas, Eduardo, Nancy J. Cooke, and Michael A. Rosen (2008). "On Teams, Teamwork, as well as Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments". Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 50 (3): 540–547. :.
Valentine, Melissa A., Ingrid M. Nembhard, and Amy C. Edmondson (April 12, 2012).
(PDF). Working Paper 11-116. Harvard Business School 2012.
West, M. A. (2012): Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Third Edition.
REFERENCES Chang, A Bordia, P Duck, Julie (2003): Punctuated Equilibrium and Linear Progression: Toward a New Understanding of Group Development. In: Academy of Management Journal 46 (1), S. 106–117. Gersick, Connie. J. G. (1991): Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm. In: The Academy of Management Review 16 (1), S. 10–16. West, M. A. (2012): Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Third Edition. Woods, Stephen A.; West, Michael A. (2010): The psychology of works and organizations. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.
West, M. A. (2012): Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Third Edition
Marks, Michelle A., John E. Mathieu, and Stephen J. Zacaro punda (2001). "A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes". Academy of Management Review. 26 (3): 356–376. :.
LePine, Jeffery A., Ronald F. Piccolo, Christine L. Jackson, John E. Mathieu, and Jessica R. Saul (2008). "A Meta-Analysis of Teamwork Processes: Tests of a Multidimensional Model and Relationships with Team Effectiveness Criteria". Personnel Psychology. 61 (2): 273–307. :.  .
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Mariani, M. e S. Mengoli (2013) "Tackling the 'Galácticos' Effect: Team Familiarity and the Performance of Star-Studded Projects", Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(6): .
"Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis". Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 50 (6). 2008. pp. 903–933. :.
Chin, Roger (2015). . Team Performance Management. 21: 199–216. :.
Hoegl, Martin & Hans Georg Gemuenden (2001). "Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: a Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence". Organization Science. 12 (4): 435–449. :.  .
Paulus, P. "Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups". Applied psychology. 49 (2): 237–262.
Manser, T. (2009). "Teamwork and Patient Safety in Dynamic Domains of Healthcare: a Review of the Literature". Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 53 (2): 143–151. :.
Mckinney, E. H. (). . Management Communication Quarterly. 19 (2): 198–237. :.
Hollenbeck, John R.; Beersma, B Schouten, Maartje E. (). . Academy of Management Review. 37 (1): 82–106. :.  .
Klein, Katherine J.; Ziegert, Jonathan C.; Knight, Andrew P.; Xiao, Yan (2006). "Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams". Administrative Science Quarterly. 51: 590–621. :.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M Waller, Mary J; Ancona, Deborah (). . Research on Managing Groups and Teams. 6. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 135–158. :.
Zijlstra, Fred R. H.; Waller, Mary J.; Phillips, Sybil I. (). . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 21 (5): 749–777. :.  .
This article's
may not follow Wikipedia's
or . Please
by removing less relevant or redundant pu or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate . (January 2017) ()
Wikimedia Commons has media related to .
Larson, Carl E. & Frank M. LaFasto (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.  .
Hackman, J. Richard, ed. (1990). Groups That Work (and Those That Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  .
Stevens, Michael J.; Campion, Michael A. (1994). "The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management". Journal of Management. 20 (2): 503–530. :.
Jones, Gareth R.; George, Jennifer M. (1998). "The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for Cooperation and Teamwork". The Academy of Management Review. 23 (3): 531–546. :.
Sexton, J. Bryan, Eric J. Thomas, and Robert L. Helmreich (2000). . BMJ. 320: 745–749. :.   .  .
Hall, P.; Weaver, L. (2001). "Interdisciplinary Education and Teamwork: a Long and Winding Road". Medical Education. 35 (9): 867–875. :.
Morey, John C.; Simon, R Jay, Gregory D.; Wears, Robert L.; Salisbury, M Dukes, Kimberly A.; Berns, Scott D. (2002). "Error Reduction and Performance Improvement in the Emergency Department through Formal Teamwork Training: Evaluation Results of the MedTeams Project". Health Services Research. 37 (6): . :.
Thomas, Eric J.; Sexton, J. B Helmreich, Robert L. (2003). "Discrepant Attitudes about Teamwork Among Critical Care Nurses and Physicians". Critical Care Medicine. 31 (3): 956–959. :.  .
Sheard, A. G. & A. P. Kakabadse (2004). "A Process Perspective on Leadership and Team Development". The Journal of Management Development. 23 (1): 7–11, 13–41, 43–79, 81–106. :.
Leonard, M.; Graham, S.; Bonacum, D. (2004). "The Human Factor: the Critical Importance of Effective Teamwork and Communication in Providing Safe Care". Quality and Safety in Health Care. 13 (Supplement 1): i85–i90. :.
Salas, E Sims, Dana E.; Burke, C. Shawn (2005). "Is there a 'Big Five' in Teamwork?". Small Group Research. 36 (5): 555–599. :.
Baker, David P.; Day, R Salas, Eduardo (2006).
(PDF). Health Services Research. 41 (4p2): . :.   .  .
DeChurch, Leslie A.; Mesmer-Magnus, Jessica R. (2010). "The Cognitive Underpinnings of Effective Teamwork: a Meta-Analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 95 (1): 32–53. :.  .
West, Michael (2012). Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: BPS Blackwell.  .
: Hidden categories:}