Exploring the Effect of Experience on Team Behavior: A Computational Approach

  • Marija Majda PerišićEmail author
  • Mario Štorga
  • John S. Gero
Conference paper


The paper presents the results of research aimed at contributing to a better understanding of the effect of team experience and learning on the performance of a design team. An agent-based model of the design team was developed, and computational simulations were utilized to study how agent’s knowledge changes by its use and what are the effects of such changes on the team behavior.



This paper reports on work funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, and Croatian Science Foundation MInMED project ( This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation to the third author under Grant CMMI‐1400466. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Gero JS, Peng W (2009) Understanding behaviours of a constructive memory agent: a markov chain analysis. Knowl-Based Syst 22:610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Light B, Butterworth G (2016) Context and cognition: ways of learning and knowing. Routlege, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2004) The situated function-behavior-structure framework. Des Stud 25(4):373–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kannengiesser U, Gero JS (2012) A process framework of affordances in design. Des Issues 28:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gero JS, Fujii H (2000) A computational framework for concept formation in a situated design agent. Knowl-Based Syst 13(6):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maher ML, Gero JS (2002) Agent models of 3D virtual worlds. In: ACADIA 2002: thresholds, pp 127–138. California State Polytechnic University, PamonaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gero JS (2017) Whither design theory and methods? Back to the future: the next 50 years, ANZAScA, pp 563–572Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sivasubramaniam N, Liebowitz SJ, Lackman CL (2012) Determinants of new product development team performance: a meta-analytic review. J Prod Innov Manag 29:803–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carbonell P, Rodriguez AI (2006) Designing teams for speedy product development: the moderating effect of technological complexity. J Bus Res 59:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akgun AE, Lynn GS (2002) Antecedents and consequences of learning in new product development teams. J Eng Technol Manage 5:57–72Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gruenfeld DH, Fan ET (1999) What newcomers see and what oldtimers say: discontinuities in knowledge exchange. In: Shared cognition in organizations: the management of knowledge, pp 245–268. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levine JM, Moreland RL (1999) Knowledge transmission in work groups: helping newcomers succeed. In: Shared cognition in organizations: the management of knowledge, pp 267–296. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi HS, Thomson L (2005) Old wine in a new bottle: impact of membership change on group creativity. Organ Behav Hum Dec 98:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson CB, Gibbs CL (2006) Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effect of geographic dispersion, electronic dependance, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Admin Sci Quart 51:451–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirst G (2009) Effects of membership change on open discussion and team performance: the moderating role of team tenure. EJWOP 18:231–249Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Badke-Schaub P, Neumann A, Lauche K, Mohammed S (2007) Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign 3:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McComb C, Cagan J, Kotovsky K (2015) Lifting the veil: drawing insights about design teams from a cognitively-inspired computational model. Des Stud 40:119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ambler NP (2015) Design in the modern age: investigating the role of complexity on the performance of collaborative engineering design teams. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh V, Dong A, Gero JS (2013) Social learning in design teams: the importance of direct and indirect communications. AIEDAM 27:167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kannengiesser U, Gero JS (2004) Modelling expertise of temporary design teams. J Des Res 4:1–13Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sosa R, Gero JS (2013) The creative values of bad ideas. Proc CAADRIA 2013:853–862Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W, Segers M, Woltjer G, Kirschner P (2011) Team learning: building shared mental models. Instr Sci 29:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perisic MM, Storga M, Gero JS (2017) Building a computational laboratory for the study of team behaviour in product development. Proc ICED’17 8:189–198Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carley K, Gasser L (1999) Computational organization theory, multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 299–330Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson EG, Lewis K (2014) A dynamic model of individual and collaborative learning amid disruption. Organ Sci 25:356–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marija Majda Perišić
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mario Štorga
    • 1
    • 2
  • John S. Gero
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  4. 4.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations