Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

A conceptual framework is an analytical tool that is used to get a comprehensive

understanding of a phenomenon. It can be used in different fields of work and is most


commonly used to visually explain the key concepts or variables and the relationships
between them that need to be studied.

The input-process-output model has historically been the dominant approach to


understanding and explaining team performance and continues to exert a strong
influence on group research today. The framework is based on classic systems theory,
which states that the general structure of a system is as important in determining how
effectively it will function as its individual components. Similarly, the IPO model has a
causal structure, in that outputs are a function of various group processes, which are in
turn influenced by numerous input variables. In its simplest form, the model is depicted
as the following:

Input —> Process —> Output


Inputs

Inputs reflect the resources that groups have at their disposal and are generally divided
into three categories: individual-level factors, group-level factors, and environmental
factors. Individual-level factors are what group members bring to the group, such as
motivation, personality, abilities, experiences, and demographic attributes. Examples of
group-level factors are work structure, team norms, and group size. Environmental
factors capture the broader context in which groups operate, such as reward structure,
stress level, task characteristics, and organizational culture.

Processes

Processes are the mediating mechanisms that convert inputs to outputs. A key aspect
of the definition is that processes represent interactions that take place among team
members. Many different taxonomies of teamwork behaviors have been proposed, but
common examples include coordination, communication, conflict management, and
motivation.

In comparison with inputs and outputs, group processes are often more difficult to
measure, because a thorough understanding of what groups are doing and how they
complete their work may require observing members while they actually perform a task.
This may lead to a more accurate reflection of the true group processes, as opposed to
relying on members to self-report their processes retrospectively. In addition, group
processes evolve over time, which means that they cannot be adequately represented
through a single observation. These difficult methodological issues have caused many
studies to ignore processes and focus only on inputs and outputs. Empirical group
research has therefore been criticized as treating processes as a “black box” (loosely
specified and unmeasured), despite how prominently featured they are in the IPO
model. Recently, however, a number of researchers have given renewed emphasis to
the importance of capturing team member interactions, emphasizing the need to
measure processes longitudinally and with more sophisticated measures.

Outputs

Indicators of team effectiveness have generally been clustered into two general
categories: group performance and member reactions. Group performance refers to the
degree to which the group achieves the standard set by the users of its output.
Examples include quality, quantity, timeliness, efficiency, and costs. In contrast,
member reactions involve perceptions of satisfaction with group functioning, team
viability, and personal development. For example, although the group may have been
able to produce a high-quality product, mutual antagonism may be so high that
members would prefer not to work with one another on future projects. In addition, some
groups contribute to member well-being and growth, whereas others block individual
development and hinder personal needs from being met.
In scientific research, scientists, technicians and researchers utilize a variety of
methods and variables when conducting their experiments. In simple terms, a variable
represents a measurable attribute that changes or varies across the experiment
whether comparing results between multiple groups, multiple people or even when
using a single person in an experiment conducted over time. In all, there are six
common variable types.
Variables represents the measurable traits that can change over the course of a
scientific experiment. In all there are six basic variable types: dependent, independent,
intervening, moderator, controlled and extraneous variables.

Independent and Dependent Variables

In general, experiments purposefully change one variable, which is the independent


variable. But a variable that changes in direct response to the independent variable is
the dependent variable. Say there’s an experiment to test whether changing the
position of an ice cube affects its ability to melt. The change in an ice cube's position
represents the independent variable. The result of whether the ice cube melts or not is
the dependent variable.

Intervening and Moderator Variables

Intervening variables link the independent and dependent variables, but as abstract
processes, they are not directly observable during the experiment. For example, if
studying the use of a specific teaching technique for its effectiveness, the technique
represents the independent variable, while the completion of the technique's
objectives by the study participants represents the dependent variable, while the
actual processes used internally by the students to learn the subject matter represents
the intervening variables.

Constant or Controllable Variable

Sometimes certain characteristics of the objects under scrutiny are deliberately left
unchanged. These are known as constant or controlled variables. In the ice cube
experiment, one constant or controllable variable could be the size and shape of the
cube. By keeping the ice cubes' sizes and shapes the same, it's easier to measure the
differences between the cubes as they melt after shifting their positions, as they all
started out as the same size.

Extraneous Variables

A well-designed experiment eliminates as many unmeasured extraneous variables as


possible. This makes it easier to observe the relationship between the independent
and dependent variables. These extraneous variables, also known as unforeseen
factors, can affect the interpretation of experimental results. Lurking variables, as a
subset of extraneous variables represent the unforeseen factors in the experiment.

Another type of lurking variable includes the confounding variable, which can render
the results of the experiment useless or invalid. Sometimes a confounding variable
could be a variable not previously considered. Not being aware of the confounding
variable’s influence skews the experimental results. For example, say the surface
chosen to conduct the ice-cube experiment was on a salted road, but the
experimenters did not realize the salt was there and sprinkled unevenly, causing some
ice cubes to melt faster. Because the salt affected the experiment's results, it's both a
lurking variable and a confounding variable.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi