A Study of the Developmental Mechanisms of Inter-Team Conflict Processes Within Multi-Team Systems - An Exploratory Analysis Based on a Collaborative R&D Context

Figures & data

Table 1 Element Set

Number	Nine Levels of Codes	Eight Levels of Coding	Number	Nine Levels of Codes	Eight Levels of Coding
1	Border Manager	Border Manager Background	9	Inter-team process conflict	Inter-team technical solution conflicts
		Boundary manager role multiplicity			Inter-team schedule conflicts
		Boundary Manager Competence			Inter-team issue attribution conflicts
		Boundary Manager Power	10	Inter-team cognitive conflict	Inter-team concept conflict
		Boundary Manager Traits			Conflict of goals between teams
2	Heterogeneity among boundary managers	Age heterogeneity among boundary managers	11	Inter-team cooperation behavior	Inter-team support
		Heterogeneity of professional backgrounds among boundary managers			Inter-team cooperation
3	Team Capability	Team Assurance Capability			Inter-team coordination
		Team management skills	12	Inter-team conflict management behavior	Conflict Management Behavior - Third Party Intervention
		Team Technical Capability			Conflict Management Behavior-Accommodating
		Team-related cooperation experience			Conflict management behavior-avoidance
4	Multiplicity of team roles	Multiplicity of roles in the system			Conflict Management Behavior - Integration
		Duality of team scheduling			Conflict Management Behavior - Compromise
		Team task hierarchy			Conflict management behavior-led
5	Inter-team relations	Inter-team relationship complexity	13	Team Learning	Internal team learning
		Tightness of relationships between teams			Team External Learning
		Interdependence between teams	14	Team goal identification	Boundary manager goal identification
		Previous relationships between teams			Team goal identification
		Inter-team constraints	15	Inter-team interactive memory system	Mutual understanding of the inter-team environment
6	Inter-team heterogeneity	Inter-team status heterogeneity			Mutual understanding of inter-team capabilities
		Heterogeneity of work patterns among teams			Mutual understanding of team needs
		Heterogeneity of professional backgrounds between teams	16	Team Level Results	Team Level - Win-win between teams
		Uneven resource input among teams			Team Level - Team Material Acquisition
		Inter-team organizational context heterogeneity			Team Level - Team Business Development
		Inter-team organizational affiliation heterogeneity			Team Level - Team Management Skills Enhancement
7	System Objectives	Dedication of the subject matter			Team Level - Team Technical Capability Enhancement
		System goal clarity			Team affiliated organization promotion
		System target difficulty factor	17	System level results	Smoothness of cooperation
		System target binding			System Innovation
8	Inter-team communication	Inter-team communication hierarchy			System goal achievement
		Inter-team communication procedures	18	Team Affiliation	Resource conditions of the organization to which the team belongs
		Inter-team communication content			Organizational structure of the team
		Frequency of inter-team communication			Team Affiliation Support
		Inter-team communication tools			The institutional culture of the organization to which the team belongs
		Smooth communication between teams
		Inter-team information transfer
		Inter-team information feedback

Table 2 Adjacency Matrix

M18×18	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
6	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
7	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0
9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0
13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
14	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
16	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
17	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0
18	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1

Table 3 Reachable Matrix

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
5	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
6	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
7	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0
12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	0
13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
14	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	0
15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	0
16	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
17	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0
18	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1	1	1

Table 4 Reachable Set, Prior Set and Common Set Obtained by the First Division

Element Number	R(ei)	Q(ei)	T(ei)	Q(ei)=T(ei)
1	1, 8, 13, 15, 17	1	1	Q(1) = T(1)
2	2, 8, 13, 15, 17	2	2	Q(2) = T(2)
3	3, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17	3	3	Q(3) = T(3)
4	4, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17	4	4	Q(4) = T(4)
5	5, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17	5	5	Q(5) = T(5)
6	6, 12, 13, 16, 17	6	6	Q(6) = T(6)
7	7, 12, 13, 16, 17	7	7	Q(7) = T(7)
8	8, 13, 15, 17	1, 2, 8, 15	8, 15	≠
9	9, 12, 13, 16, 17	4, 9	9	≠
10	10, 12, 13, 16, 17	10, 14	10	≠
11	11, 13, 17	3, 5, 11	11	≠
12	12, 13, 16, 17	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18	12	≠
13	13	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18	13	≠
14	10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17	14	14	Q(14) = T(14)
15	8, 13, 15, 17	1, 2, 8, 15	8, 15	≠
16	16	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18	16	≠
17	13, 17	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18	17	≠
18	12, 13, 16, 17, 18	18	18	Q(18) = T(18)

Notes: The “≠” is meant to indicate that T(ei) is not the intersection of R(ei) and Q(ei).

Table 5 Reachable Set, Prior Set and Common Set Obtained by the Second Division

Element Number	R(ei)	Q(ei)	T(ei)	R(ei)=T(ei)
8	8, 13, 15, 17	8, 15	8, 15	≠
9	9, 12, 13, 16, 17	9	9	≠
10	10, 12, 13, 16, 17	10	10	≠
11	11, 13, 17	11	11	≠
12	12, 13, 16, 17	9, 10, 12	12	≠
13	13	8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17	13	R(13) = T(13)
15	8, 13, 15, 17	8, 15	8, 15	≠
16	16	9, 10, 12, 16	16	R(16) = T(16)
17	13, 17	8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17	17	≠

Notes: The “≠” is meant to indicate that T(ei) is not the intersection of R(ei) and Q(ei).

Table 6 Reachable Set, Prior Set and Common Set Obtained by Third Division

Element Number	R(ei)	Q(ei)	T(ei)	Q(ei)=T(ei)
8	8, 15, 17	8, 15	8, 15	Q(8) = T(8)
9	9, 12, 17	9	9	Q(9) = T(9)
10	10, 12, 17	10	10	Q(10) = T(10)
11	11, 17	11	11	Q(11) = T(11)
12	12, 17	9, 10, 12	12	≠
15	8, 15, 17	8, 15	8, 15	Q(15) = T(15)
17	17	8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17	17	≠

Table 7 Reachable Set, Prior Set and Common Set Obtained by the Fourth Division

Element Number	R(ei)	Q(ei)	T(ei)	R(ei)=T(ei)
12	12, 17	12	12	≠
17	17	12, 17	17	R(17) = T(17)

Notes: The “≠” is meant to indicate that T(ei) is not the intersection of R(ei) and Q(ei).

Table 8 Reachable Set, Prior Set and Common Set Obtained by the Fifth Division

Element Number	R(ei)	Q(ei)	T(ei)	Q(ei)=T(ei)
12	12	12	12	Q(12) = T(12)

Table 9 Hierarchy Results

Hierarchy Number	Elements in the Hierarchy	From Step
0	13, 16	Step 2
1	17	Step 4
2	12	Step 5
3	8, 9, 10, 11, 15	Step 3
4	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 18	Step 1

Figure 1 Hierarchy of conflict process development mechanisms between teams within a multi-team system.

Table 10 Relationship Structure of “Conflict Latent → Conflict Perception” and Examples of Typical Quotations

Relationship Structure	The connotation of relationship structure	Examples of typical quotations
Team role multiplicity → Inter-team process conflict	The multiplicity of tasks, hierarchy and role ambiguity triggered by the multiplicity of roles in teams leads to process conflicts among teams.	Evidence 1: Their main priority is production; we have no option but to wait Evidence 2: We supply products to Enterprise A and provide technical services to Enterprise B, with support. The relationship is highly complex. When an issue arises, it is comprehensive and can not be solely blamed on A or B
Team goal identification→ Inter-team cognitive conflict	Conflicting goals and philosophies between teams are easily triggered when they do not agree on each other’s goals and common system objectives.	Evidence 1: Conflicts regarding goals and philosophies between teams often arise when there is a lack of agreement on mutual goals and overarching system objectives. It is not that they are entirely uncooperative; obtaining their approval, especially from the top, can bring about change. Evidence 2: There is a lack of consensus between the parties about the project’s direction. While one focuses on the cutting edge, the other emphasizes the present. Evidence 3: The other party aims to minimize costs, while our goal is ensuring high performance. This discrepancy arises due to a lack of communication regarding mutual expectations and boundaries.
Inter-team relations → Inter-team cooperation behavior	Teams are more likely to develop cooperative behaviors when there is interdependence and high-quality prior relationships.	Evidence 1: They are genuinely committed to this project and aim for its success. However we have options and can look elsewhere if needed. Evidence 2: Previously, there was a disagreement about who would get the opportunity for overseas training. This time, they are not as cooperative.
Team Capability→ Inter-team cooperation behavior	The stronger the team capacity, the more likely inter-team cooperative behavior will occur.	Evidence 1: They have an effective management system in place. and can execute tasks without hindrance. Evidence 2: Their output is top-notch, with excellent coordination. Their overall technical quality is high.
Inter-team cooperation behavior → System level results	Cooperative behavior is maintained between teams, and the process of conflict between teams stops and has a positive impact on system acquisition.	Evidence 1: Our collaboration in this domain has always been smooth. For instance, when we face challenges, they assist us in resolving them Exhibit 2: They partnered with us on this initiative, and when the final report was presented, there were no objections.

Table 11 Relationship Structure of “Conflict Perception → Conflict Management” and Examples of Typical Quotations

Relationship Structure	The Connotation of Relationship Structure	Examples of Typical Quotations
Types of inter-team conflict → Inter-team conflict management	Teams respond to different types of conflict while adopting different conflict management approaches.	Exhibit 1: When faced with philosophical disagreements, external assistance becomes crucial. Expert validation sessions are typically conducted in such scenarios. Exhibit 2: Proceed to the lead unit to decide and develop a unified program.
Inter-team relations → Inter-team conflict management	The dependent party among teams is more likely to take a dominant approach to conflict management, and the dependent party is more likely to take a retreating approach to conflict management.	Evidence 1: The platform of the people is powerful; in relative terms, we lean towards compromise. Evidence 2: Although I have been pressured not to sign on, I can always find another place. However, he does not have that luxury.
Team Capability→ Inter-team conflict management	The more capable the team is based on the constraints of the overall goal, the more likely it is to take a step-back approach to conflict management.	Evidence 1: After debating the feasibility of the technology, we eventually decided. to give the other side a step forward. Evidence 2: In this project, we bear the primary responsibility. If they fall behind in progress, only we have to make amends for them. after all, we have the necessary expertise and resources.
Inter-team heterogeneity → Inter-team conflict management	Inter-team status heterogeneity and organizational affiliation heterogeneity have an impact on the way inter-team conflict is managed.	Evidence 1: We are the principal entity responsible for this project and generally operate in guidelines. Evidence 2: Given our common shareholders, direct confrontations or holding them accountable is not always feasible. Coordination is often the best course of action.
Organization to which the team belongs→ Inter-team conflict management	The organization to which the team belongs influences the team’s conflict management through organizational culture and support or lack thereof.	Evidence 1: He is accustomed to leveraging his power in this system. He must take responsibility for what he says and wants. Evidence 2: If you do not want to do it, their leaders will replace you. There are always other colleagues ready to step in. so you must be on your A game.
System Objective→ Inter-team conflict management	System goals influence the way teams manage conflict through both subject matter specificity and binding.	Evidence 1: If you choose not to persevere, all previous efforts will seem in vain—quite like a flavorless chicken rib, which if discarded, results in regret. Evidence 2: He must deliver before the stipulated deadline; failure to do so could land him on a blacklist.

Table 12 Relationship Structure of “Conflict Management → Conflict Outcome” and Examples of Typical Quotations

Relationship Structure	The Connotation of Relationship Structure	Examples of Typical Quotations
Inter-team conflict management → system level results	Inter-team conflict management behaviors differ based on motivation and have an impact on system outcomes.	Evidence 1: Provide them with ample space and tolerance. the primary goal is color recognition, followed by tracing. Alongside recognition technology. it can also accomplish positioning. Evidence 2: We may often contemplate about how to perfect and optimize the problem. They aim to minimize costs; the quicker, the better. Improvements can only be made gradually over time.
Inter-team conflict management → Team Level Results	Inter-team conflict management behavior affects teams based on a temporal perspective.	Exhibit 1: Everyone got together and coordinated frequently. Over time, they visited more often and even jointly applied for a research project. initiating further collaboration. Evidence 2: Assist them with evidence work. This aids their leaders in making decisions conveniently. Secondly, it eases communication with relevant equipment vendors. When equipment providers supply tools, having knowledge makes a difference, right? It can significantly affect them.
System level results → Team Learning	System results trigger learning behaviors in the team.	Evidence 1: Upon seeking international certification, it was evident we faced a technological setback. We then purchased foreign English original standards to learn. Evidence 2: The final result is excellent. The other party maintained stringent process control, and we plan to adhere to these standards moving forward.

Table 13 Relationship Structure of Inter-Team Communication Influence Mechanisms and Examples of Typical Quotations

Relationship Structure	The connotation of Relationship Structure	Examples of Typical Quotations
Inter-team communication → System level results	Effective inter-team communication has a positive impact on system results.	Evidence 1: First, tell me what to use to achieve which effect. Which ready-made sample resources can be referred to? After communicating these items, this project went smoothly. Evidence 2: Especially when requirements change approaching the final acceptance, timely feedback is especially important.
Border Manager → Inter-team communication	The competencies and traits of boundary managers can affect the effectiveness of inter-team communication.	Evidence 1: There has been changes. I do not like to change often, so due to my personality, I had some communication problems with him. Evidence 1: The project coordinator’s temperament is closely related. The original coordinator was an experienced expert with a temper. Some issues were hard to discuss directly with him. But after the change, everything could be discussed openly.
Heterogeneity among boundary managers → Inter-team communication	The lower the heterogeneity among boundary managers, the more effective the inter-team communication.	Evidence 1: He has worked in XX for many years, and our experience difference …… made our communication more challenging. Evidence 2: There is an associate researcher about my age. When I communicate with him, it feels like he does not know much, making the communication comfortable.
Inter-team communication ↔ Inter-team interactive memory system	Inter-team communication and inter-team interactive memory systems have a positive impact on each other.	Evidence 1: There is mutual influence. Over time, they might get to know your ways and methods. Evidence 2: Who has what ability to do what, this needs to be communicated upfront.