A revolution in military learning? Cross-functional teams and knowledge transformation by lessons-learned processes

References

• Alderson, A., 2010. The army brain. The RUSI journal, 155 (3), 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony, E.L., Green, S.G., and Comb, S.L., 2014. Crossing functions above the cross-functional project team. Journal of engineering and technology management, 31, 141–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, A., 2012. Time to move on: reconceptualising the strategic culture debate. Contemporary security policy, 33 (3), 437–461.
   Google Scholar
• Boateng, W., 2012. Evaluating the efficacy of focus group discussion in qualitative social research. International journal of business and social science, 3 (7), 54–57.
   Google Scholar
• Braw, E., 2017. America shows how doctorates add power to a general’s arsenal. Financial Times, 12 July. Available from: www.ft.com/content/178f3fb8-66e9-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe.
   Google Scholar
• Bunduchi, R., 2009. Implementing best practices to support creativity in NPD cross-functional teams. International journal of innovation management, 13 (4), 537–554.
   Google Scholar
• Carreiras, H., Castro, C., and Frederic, S., 2016. Conclusion. In: H. Carreiras, C. Castro, and S. Frederic, eds. Researching the military. Abingdon: Routledge, 196–204.
   Google Scholar
• Castro, C., 2016. Interviewing the Brazilian military. In: H. Carreiras, C. Castro, and S. Frederic, eds. Researching the military. Abingdon: Routledge, 87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Catignani, S., 2014. Coping with knowledge: organizational learning in the British Army? Journal of strategic studies, 37 (1), 30–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-S., Lin, M.-J.J., and Chang, C.-H., 2009. The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial marketing management, 38 (2), 152–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, C.-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., and Lee, F., 2008. Taking advantage of differences: increasing team innovation through identity integration. Diversity and groups, 11, 55–73.
   Google Scholar
• Chua, A., Law, W., and Majid, S., 2006. Review: knowledge re-use in action, the case of CALL. Journal of information science, 32 (3), 251–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E., 1997. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management, 23 (3), 239–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1989. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The economic journal, 99, 569–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., and Boutellier, R., 2015. Designing workplaces for cross-functional knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 19 (2), 236–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daspit, J., et al., 2013. Cross functional team effectiveness: an examination of internal team environment, shared leadership and cohesion influences. Team performance management: an international journal, 19 (1/2), 34–56.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, J., 2011. Lifting the fog of peace: how America learned to fight modern war. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Long, D. and Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of management executive, 14 (4), 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Denison, D.R., Hart, S.L., and Kahn, J.A., 1996. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: developing and validating a diagnostic model. The academy of management journal, 39 (4), 1005–1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyson, T., 2019a. The military as a learning organisation: establishing the fundamentals of best-practice in lessons-learned. Defence studies, 19 (2), 107–129.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, T., 2019b. Organisational learning and the modern army: a new model for lessons-learned processes. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, T., 2020. Unpacking military emulation: absorptive capacity and German counterinsurgency doctrine during ISAF. European security, 29 (1), 33–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egnell, R., 2011. Lessons from Helmand, Afghanistan: what now for British counterinsurgency? International affairs, 87 (2), 297–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eraut, M., 2004. Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in continuing education, 26 (2), 247–273.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T., 2010. Improving in war: military adaptation and the British in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, 2006-2009’. Journal of strategic studies, 33 (4), 567–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feaver, P.D., 2003. Armed servants: agency, oversight and civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foley, R.T., 2014. Dumb donkeys or cunning foxes? learning in the British and German Armies during the Great War. International affairs, 90 (2), 279–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley, R.T., Griffin, S., and McCartney, H., 2011. Transformation in contact: learning the lessons of modern war. International affairs, 87 (2), 253–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, A., 2017. Learning to fight: innovation and change in the British Army 1914-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gemser, G. and Leenders, M.A., 2011. Managing cross-functional cooperation for new product development success. Long range planning, 44 (1), 26–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneviève, D., et al., 2010. Team performance and adaptability in crisis-management. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 54th annual meeting, 27 September–1 October 2010. San Francisco, CA, 1610­–1614.
   Google Scholar
• Ghobadi, S. and D’Ambra, J., 2012. Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model. Journal of knowledge management, 16 (2), 285–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, S., 2017. Military innovation studies: multidisciplinary or lacking discipline? Journal of strategic studies, 40 (1-2), 196–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, A., 2006. The future of military innovation studies. Journal of strategic studies, 29 (5), 905–934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkness, K.A. and Hunzeker, M., 2015. Military maladaptation: counterinsurgency and the politics of failure. Journal of strategic studies, 38 (6), 777–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, R., 2004. Clash of arms: how the allies won in Normandy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Hasselbladh, H. and Ydén, K., 2019. Why military organisations are cautious about learning? Armed forces and society. doi:10.1177/0095327X19832058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinecken, L., 2016. Reflections on insider-outsider experiences of military research in South Africa. In: H. Carreiras, C. Castro, and S. Frederic, eds. Researching the military. Abingdon: Routledge, 36–49.
   Google Scholar
• Henke, J.W., Krachenberg, A.R., and Lyons, T.F., 1993. Cross-functional teams: good concept, poor implementation. Journal of product innovation management, 10, 216–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines, L.A., et al., 2014. Are the armed forces understood and supported by the public? A view from the UK. Armed forces and society, 41 (4), 688–713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hines, L.A., et al., 2015. Are the armed forces understood and supported by the public? A view from the UK. Armed forces and society, 41 (4), 688–713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, S., Gaston, K., and Gomes, J., 2000. Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International journal of management reviews, 2 (3), 231–259.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, M.C., 2010. The diffusion of military power: causes and consequences for international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 1. Civilian analyst, JALLC, Lisbon, Portugal, 17 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 2. Civilian analyst, JALLC, Lisbon, Portugal, 18 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 3. Military analyst, (SO2), British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 16 December 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 4. Civilian analyst, British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 10 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 5. Two military analysts, (SO1 and SO2), British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 9 May 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 6. Senior officer, Department for Lessons-Learned, Bundeswehr Operations Command, Potsdam, 28 April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 7. Two staff officers (SO1), Department for Interoperability, Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning, Koepenick, 4 May 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 8. Senior Officer, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, Warfare, Land Warfare Centre, Warminster, 11 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 9. Senior officer, British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 17 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 10. Military analyst (senior officer), JALLC, Lisbon, 17 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 11. Military analyst, (SO1), JALLC, Lisbon, 18 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 12. Military analyst, (SO1), JALLC, Lisbon, 18 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 13. Military analyst (SO1), JALLC, Lisbon, 17 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 14. Senior officer, JALLC, Lisbon, 18 October 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 15. Senior civil servant, Chilcot Implementation Team, Ministry of Defence, London, 29 September 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 16. Interview, former head of British Army Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Centre, London, 27 February 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 17. Military analyst (SO2), British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 10 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 18. Military analyst, (SO2), British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 28 February 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 19. Senior officer, British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 28 February 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 20. Civil servant, Joint Services Command and Staff College, Shrivenham, 11 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 21. Staff Officer (SO1), Abteilung Strategie und Einsatz, German Ministry of Defence, 14 June 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 22. Staff Officer (SO1), Lessons Learned Branch, Army Command, Strausberg, 19 April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 23. Staff officer (SO2), one civilian, CHACR, RMA Sandhurst, 12 July 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 24. Telephone interview, former Head, British Army Lessons Team, Warminster, 19 January 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 25. One interview partner, former Bundeswehr Lessons Learned Staff Officer, ISAF 2011, Cologne, 28 June 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Interview 26. Former Head of Lessons Exploitation Centre, Warminster, 28 February 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Jabar, J., Soosay, C., and Santa, R., 2011. Organisational learning as an antecedent of technology transfer and new product development. Journal of manufacturing technology management, 22 (1), 25–45.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, J.J.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W., 2005. Managing potential and realised absorptive capacity: how do organisational antecedents matter? The academy of management journal, 48 (6), 999–1015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johlke, M.C., Stamper, C.L., and Shoemaker, M.E., 2002. Antecedents to boundary-spanner perceived organisational support. Journal of managerial psychology, 17 (2), 116–128.
   Google Scholar
• Kier, E., 1995. Culture and military doctrine: France between the wars. International security, 19 (4), 65–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzen, M., 2019. The Netherlands’ lessons. Parameters, 49 (3), 41–53.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, A., 1994. Cavalry to computer: the pattern of military revolutions. The national interest, 37 (4), 30–42.
   Google Scholar
• Lis, A., 2012. How to strengthen positive organisational behaviours fostering experiential learning? The case of military organisational learning. Journal of entrepreneurship, management and innovation, 8 (4), 21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Lovelace, A., Shapiro, D.L., and Weingart, L.R., 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence. The academy of management journal, 44 (4), 779–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, R.D., 2015. Military innovation and tactical adaptation in the Israel–Hizballah conflict: the institutionalization of lesson-learning in the IDF. Journal of strategic studies, 38 (4), 500–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, R.D., 2019. Learning ‘under fire’: Israel’s improvised military adaptation to Hamas tunnel warfare. Journal of strategic studies, 42 (3-4), 344–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsick, V.J., 2009. Towards a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and practice. Journal of workplace learning, 21 (4), 265–275.
   Google Scholar
• McDonough, E.F., III, 2000. Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of product development management, 17, 221–235.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, S.G., Gauvin, M., and Waruszynski, B., 2003, Spring. Knowledge management in the military context. Canadian military journal, 4 (1), 35–40.
   Google Scholar
• Moro, F.N., Cicchi, L., and Coticchia, F., 2018. Through military lenses: perceptions of security threats and jointness in the Italian Air Force. Defence studies, 18 (2), 207–228.
   Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, A., 2017. Fighting separately: jointness and civil-military relations in India. Journal of strategic studies, 40 (1-2), 6–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osburn, J., Caruso, G., and Wolfensburger, W., 2011. The concept of “best practice”: a brief overview of its meanings, scope, uses, and shortcomings. International journal of disability, development and education, 58 (3), 213–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole, P. and Talbot, S., 2011. Fighting for knowledge: developing learning systems in the Australian Army. Armed forces and society, 37 (1), 42–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, G., 2003. Cross-functional teams: working with allies, enemies and other strangers. San Francisco: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Parliament, 2014. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmdfence/581/58104.htm [Accessed 2 March 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Piening, E., 2013. Dynamic capabilities in public organisations: a literature review and research agenda. Public management review, 15 (2), 209–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resende-Santos, J., 2007. Neorealism, the state and the modern mass army. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sarin, S. and O’Connor, G.C., 2009. First among equals: the effect of team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of product innovation management, 26, 188–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarin, S. and Mahajan, V., 2001. The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of marketing, 65 (April), 35–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrat, O., 2017. Knowledge solutions: tools, methods, and approaches to drive organisational performance. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sethi, R., 2000. Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: its antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28 (3), 330–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, R. and Krieger, M., 2015, December 30. Don’t leave jointness to the services. Available from: https://warontherocks.com/2015/12/dont-leave-jointness-to-the-services-preserving-joint-officer-development-amid-goldwater-nichols-reform/.
   Google Scholar
• Shields, P.M. and Tajalli, H., 2006. Intermediate theory: the missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of public affairs education, 12 (3), 313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Strese, S., et al., 2016. Organizational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: the impact of leadership and organizational structure on cross-functional coopetition. Industrial marketing management, 53, 42–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckman, B. and Jensen, N., 1977. Stages of small-group development Revisited. Group and organisational studies, 2, 419–427.
   Google Scholar
• Ucko, D. and Egnell, R., 2013. Counterinsurgency in crisis: Britain and the challenges of modern warfare. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Visser, M., 2016. Organisational learning capability and battlefield performance: the British Army in WW2. International journal of organisational analysis, 24 (4), 573–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, S.S., 2002. Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success. Journal of management development, 21 (3), 201–214.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, P., 2002. The competent boundary spanner. Public administration, 80 (1), 103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yammarino, F.J., et al., 2010. Leadership and team dynamics for dangerous military contexts. Military psychology, 22 (1), S15–S41.
   Google Scholar
• Zacharakis, J. and Van der Werff, J.A., 2012. The future of adult education in the military. New directions for adult and continuing education, 136 (4), 89–98.
   Google Scholar
• Zahra, S.A. and George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of management review, 27 (2), 185–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar