Groups forming in a Company: Why smaller ones are better
In today’s world of science and business, it is becoming more and more common to hear that a great team needs to solve a big problem. But a new analysis of more than 65 million documents, patents, and software projects found that smaller groups are creating much more groundbreaking and innovative research.
In a new article published by Nature, researchers at the University of Chicago examined 600-year-old publications and found that smaller groups are more likely to come up with new ideas for science and technology, while larger groups often develop existing knowledge and Consolidated
While both large and small groups are needed for scientific progress, the results suggest that research policies and large-scale funds should re-evaluate recent trends.
“Large groups are almost always more conservative. The work they produce is like blockbuster scenes; more reactive and less risky.” James Evans, author of the study, professor of sociology, director of the UChicago Knowledge Laboratory and chief investigator of quantitative studies on how ideas and technology are generated, said. “Great teams are always looking for a straight past based on yesterday’s success. They do.”
What groups to form are better?
The Knowledge Laboratory is a unique research center that combines the “science of science” approach with the explosion of digital information available in the history of research and discovery. Researchers at the Knowledge Laboratory use advanced computer techniques and techniques to create knowledge that can lead to future innovation by developing and developing new tools to increase knowledge and influence our world over time.
Nature Studies has collected more than 44 million articles and 100,000 million citations from a web database, 500,000 patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and 1 million from the GitHub software project platform. In this huge dataset each individual work is calculated how much it is interrupted and the field of science or technology is developed.
“Spontaneous eclipses have a disruptive role in lunar eclipses like the moon; it shuts down the sun – which is the idea it is based on – and focuses all its attention on the future,” says author Lingfei Wu, a postdoctoral researcher. University of Chicago and Knowledge Laboratory. “The fact is that much of the future work is just for the role of focus and there is no evidence for its references that focus is the ‘novelty’ of the paper.”
Between paper, patents, and software products, barriers were significantly reduced with the addition of each additional team member. The same relationship arose when authors examined subsets of data in the form of year of publication, subject or author, or Nobel Prize-winning articles. Research has found that review articles that draw conclusions from previous publications are much more troubling.
The main factor between large and small groups was how everyone treated the history of their area. Large groups are based on past successes and have already recognized contemporary brain problems in their field, citing recent research mentioned in their work. In contrast, small groups often refer to old, lesser-known ideas as a deeper and broader search for information that creates new directions in science and technology.
What we know so far
“Small groups and large groups have a different nature,” Woole said. “Smaller groups remember forgotten ideas, ask questions and create new directions; larger groups follow hotspots and forget lesser known ideas, answer questions and stabilize established patterns.”
The analysis shows that both small and large groups play important roles in research ecosystems, creating new and promising perspectives in the past that larger groups can develop and integrate faster. Some experiments are very expensive, such as the Great Hadron Collider or the search for black energy, which can be answered with a single, great help. The authors argue that other complex scientific issues can be pursued more effectively than in a large consortium consisting of small, independent, and risky groups.
“In terms of science, funds around the world are funding for growing groups,” Evans said. “What our research suggests is that you want to fund a more diversified approach. It says that if you really want to build science and technology, you have to act as a capitalist enterprise rather than a big bank. And want to finance. Largely different efforts to improve opportunities. “
“Most things will fail or as a result of pushing a needle into the area, it’s really about optimizing the failure,” Evans added. “If you want to do a search, you have to bet.”
Adapted by: science daily.