Communication across specialist boundaries: IT and business administration in dialogue in an interdisciplinary team
Knowledge database Organisation Structures & processes Integration & interoperability D.1: Intelligent management of networked hospitals - a digital simulation gameInterdisciplinary teams enable new solutions - but also bring with them communication challenges. In this project, health economists, simulation experts and developers came together. Shared project management with clear interfaces facilitated communication.
Problem description, research question and relevance
Interdisciplinarity is seen as the key to solving complex social challenges, particularly in the healthcare sector (Klein, 2010). However, while the combination of different specialist perspectives harbours potential for innovation, implementation is often difficult: differences in technical language, thought logic and methodological approach often lead to misunderstandings and conflicts of objectives (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005).
As part of the project, experts from the fields of health economics, simulation & optimisation and data management & visualisation worked together on data-based decision support. While some focused on the practical benefits, others focused on mathematical modelling or high-performance technical implementation.
These differences quickly led to communication problems: Requirements were understood differently, terms were interpreted differently and technical feedback was not always categorised correctly.
Against this background, the research question arose: How can communication in interdisciplinary project teams be structured in such a way that frictional losses are minimised and synergies can be promoted?
The relevance of this question extends far beyond the individual project: interdisciplinary collaboration has long been part of everyday life in many other areas - whether in research, public administration or hospitals. Projects often fail not because of a lack of expertise, but because of a lack of mutual understanding (Salazar et al., 2012). Dealing with these challenges in a structured way is therefore key to success.
Methods and procedures in the project
One particular challenge was to communicate the content and conceptual requirements of the game in such a way that they were comprehensible and realisable for the technical developers. It was not only about the formal transfer of requirements, but also about a common understanding of which technical relationships should be mapped in the game. This was important so that the developers could give the right thought to the technical implementation - for example, the logic of the processes or decision rules.
A dual project management team was set up to improve collaboration: A representative from Health Economics and a representative from Simulation & Optimisation jointly took on the coordination. Both acted as contact persons for their respective specialist areas and together formed the interface to the technical developers.
In addition, the simulation representative took on the role of a "boundary spanner" (Levina & Vaast, 2005). He understood both the requirements of economic efficiency and the technical framework conditions - and was thus able to resolve misunderstandings, bundle queries and communicate solutions in a targeted manner.
The procedure was supplemented by regular meetings, clearly documented requirements and short feedback cycles. This enabled a common understanding to be created and project progress to be organised efficiently.
Results and findings
The decision in favour of dual project management in combination with a mediating role between specialist departments proved to be highly effective. The communication structure created clarity about responsibilities, promoted transparency and helped to connect different ways of thinking.
The role of the "boundary spanners", as described in the literature (Levina & Vaast, 2005), was particularly valuable. This person was able to perform translation work - for example, when technical feedback from programming was misunderstood by health economics or requirements were formulated too vaguely.
Another effect: mutual appreciation between the disciplines increased. While there was occasional frustration at the beginning due to supposedly "complicated" queries or "incomprehensible" requirements, the structured collaboration led to a greater understanding of the respective specialist logic.
The project objectives also benefited: requirements could be implemented more quickly, technical queries were addressed more specifically and the model logic was better checked for feasibility. Thanks to the combination of structural clarity and mediating communication, interdisciplinarity was not only experienced as a challenge, but also as a productive resource.
The project thus confirms findings from team research: interdisciplinary cooperation requires not only openness - but also structures that enable understanding (Fiore, 2008).
Recommendations for practice
Introduce subject-specific dual project management to ensure the equivalence of perspectives and build a bridge between disciplines.
Deliberately appoint a "boundary spanner", ideally with expertise in several areas involved.
Use structured communication formats, e.g. short, regular meetings with clearly defined topics and questions.
Document requirements precisely in order to minimise room for interpretation between the specialist disciplines.
Establish a common understanding of terms through glossaries or kick-off workshops.
Sensitise people to different ways of thinking, e.g. through brief inputs or mutual specialist presentations.
Build in feedback cycles between sub-teams in order to recognise misunderstandings early on and take flexible countermeasures.
Literature and other sources
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organisational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722.
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251-277.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335-363.
Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in interdisciplinary teams: The role of leaders and integrative communication. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 909-931.