Co‐creating a program for teams to maintain and reflect on their flexibility

Abstract

Summary To prevent rigidity within teams in health care and to support teams in detecting early warning signs of decreasing flexibility, a program has been co‐created in collaboration with mental healthcare teams. This program is intended to systematically monitor team behavior, and by doing so to facilitate team intervention. We aim to lay foundations for the further development of methods that can help teams to recognize and respond to processes going on under the surface. This paper introduces the program to the reader; and describes its premises and the co‐creation process, leading to a program of nine steps. Then, it describes the application of the program within a team, what a team needs to use the program, and whether the nine steps are sufficient. This pilot shows that the program is a helpful framework within which teams can talk about rigidity, define indicators of their flexibility, and think about appropriate actions and interventions for maintaining or restoring their flexibility. Team ownership and the customizability of the program are important attributes. The program appears to provide a useful framework that helps a team to observe and discuss processes. Team members become aware of the indicators of their team and make their goals explicit.

Toward a complete interdisciplinary treatment of scale

“…The spatial area represented by the surface water, groundwater, and farm models is depicted in Figure 2, and a summary of the spatial and temporal scales internal to each model is provided in Appendix A. Further details on the modeling context and findings are available in Iwanaga et al (2018.…”

“…On the other hand, model parameterization can be reduced where sensitivity and/or other analysis show that quantities of predictive interest are not influenced by certain choices. These sources of uncertainty can be explicitly documented following processes and considerations as described in Refsgaard et al (2006Refsgaard et al ( , 2007, van der Sluijs (2007), and Reichert (2020).…”

“…Specific to scale choices, the level of shared understanding and other major considerations could be explicitly catalogued in a "core" table. This table would detail the spatial and temporal scales (Koo et al, 2020), knowledge sources (Kragt et al, 2013), expected computational requirements, major uncertainty sources (Refsgaard et al, 2007;van der Sluijs, 2007;Reichert, 2020), the relevant system(s) affected, and the modeling process (Hutton et al, 2016;Ayllón et al, 2021). The ODD protocol (Grimm et al, 2006(Grimm et al, , 2010 was used to capture these considerations in the GPSCA study, adoption of which mandates that pertinent aspects of scale and their representations are documented.…”

“…Others have suggested increasing the number of meetings on the progress of the modeling and to incorporate reflexive evaluation of the team (Preston et al, 2015;Dongen et al, 2018;Delice et al, 2019;Gool et al, 2019). Increased frequency and number of meetings (whether face-to-face or virtual) in effect raises the minimum number of interactions between team members so that knowledge sharing can occur.…”

“…Such documentation allows researchers external to the process (and their future selves) to better understand the sociotechnical context in which the modeling decisions were made, the reasoning behind the decisions, and any implications or consequences from those decisions. Thus, documentation of the process helps illuminate model limitations and uncertainty (Refsgaard et al, 2006;van der Sluijs, 2007;Reichert, 2020).…”