What factors cause a team toward a virtual structure? Globalization and Information Technology (1), (2), (3)
Why do we need the virtual team? to maximize long term performance(2) and to encourage the sharing of best practices across operating companies. (2)
(1)
The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Teams
By Michael Boyer O’Leary and Jonathon N. Cummings (2007)
Paper type
This paper attempts to fill gaps left by previous research and, then, provides the standard measurement of virtual teams.
Concept
The authors point out three Dimension of Dispersion which can illustrate the geographically dispersed teams. There are Spital Dimension, Temporal Dimension and Configurational Dimension.
- Spital dispersion: distance measured in feet or miles.
- Temporal dispersion: time. work in different time zone ( team members' normal work hours overlap.)
- Configurational dispersion: Team Member. arrangement of members across sites
- Isolation: decrease awareness
- Sites: increase complexity
- Imbalance: increase conflict
The relationship between Spatial and temporal dispersion
Problem
- Prior studies method or implied multiple dimensions or varying degres of dispersion, but did not characterize those dimensions explicitly or measure variations in them.
- the majority of empirical research on geographically dispersed teams has defined dispersion loosely and usually in spatial terms.
Value
Develop a measurement which is theoretically grounded to examine VT.
Method
Applying the developed measurement to examine five real teams by five index.
- Spatial Distance Index (SDI): the higher the SDI, the more spatially dispersed the team.
- Time Zone Index (TZI)
- Site Index (SI): the more sites at which team members work, the more dispersed a team.
- Isolation Index : The more remote a member is , the less aware other members will be of his or her activities.
- Imbalance Index:
others
problem of self-report(p440)
common-method/common source problem(1):p440) (3):p294
index's external validity (split the sample into halves) (3):p294
Comments
The core value of this research is to develop a clear measurement of geographical dispersion in Teams.
I agree with the authors statement in that the value of this research can help (1) it provides scholars with a robust, theo- retically grounded, multidimensional model of geographic dispersion, which effectively captures the critical ways in which teams’ dispersion varies; and (2) it provides measures for each of those dimensions.
My concern, however, for this research is the assumption that geographical dispersion in teams represents VT. Yet, the question is does geographical dispersion in teams means virtual team? I don't think so. Can we say the greater the spatial index, the higher possibility the team is virtual? of course not.
For me, there are three types of teams in the world - traditional team, virtual team and mixed.Due to technology, virtual teams and mixed teams are everywhere and traditional teams become less and less. Think about this scenario. Suppose A and I are working on the same project. We might discuss the topic face-to-face, then search for literature, share what we found via internet or pose them to the cloud and then discuss online.
(2)
Managing the life cycle of virtual teams
By Furst, S.A., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., and Blackburn, R. S. (2004)
Paper Types
find out why virtual teams are often less effective than face to face temas on many outcome measures.
What challenges exist in each stage of forming a VT?
Research problem:
there is growing evidence that virtual teams fail more often than they succeed
Based on single observations or laboratory studies with student virtual teams.
Structure
Virtual Team life cycle (forming, stroming, norming and performing / phase I and II)--> performance
Concept
Advantages of VT
1. increased knowledge sharing and employee job satisfaction and commitment
2. improve organizational performance.
Challenges of VT
1. logistical problems ( communicating and coordinating work across time and space)
2. interpersonal concerns ( interact with others in the absence of frequent face-to-face communication)
3. technology issues
Structure & Challenges:
- Forming: takes longer when geographically dispersed/ first impression and stereotypes / trust is based on information sharing, appropriate responses
- Storming: no social cues/ take longer to reach consensus/ different expectation
- Norming: creating new habits / agreements on timetables
- Performing:maintaining team performance / synergy
Case Study - six VTs in FOODCO
Conclusions
- Why success?
- proactive, focused, resourceful, and unafraid to seek support and audience as needed.
- strong consensus in stage 2.
- frequent assessments of team processes
- team commitment
- more confident
- senior sponsor involvement at the early and middle stages of VT life cycle.
- Why failure?
- lack of communication
- reduced mission clarity and productivity
- the uncertainty of acquiring resources and support
Comments
The findings of this research seem to be the same with the findings of research that fouces on traditional teams.
(3)
How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization
by Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu. M and Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005)
Research Types
Importance of the clear definition of the concept
Value
Develop the measurement of VT
Research Problems
it has been problematic to define what ‘virtual’ means across multiple institutional contexts
Concept
A universal assumption of Virtual is distance
The distance per se will cause few challenges including: resolve conflicts, communicate, maintain social interaction over time, space, or organization units.
Factors decrease cohesion when form a VT / discontinuities.
These discontinuities include: geography, time zone, organization, national culture, work practices, and technology
Benefits of cleared definition
1. document and measure the conditions of VT
2. measure performances
3. find out the solutions
Method
Intel
Web-based survey
Measurement ( after factor analysis)
Conclusions
- Six factors have been extracted into three main factors
Team distribution: the degree to which people work on teams that have peopel distributed over different geographies and time zone.
Workplace Mobility: the degree to which employees work in environments other than regular offices.
Variety of Practice: the degree to which employees experience cultural and work process diversity on their teams. how much employees collaborated with people who track their work in different ways, use different ICT tools or experience process changes due to changes in team membership.
- Other factors (control variable) impacts team performance
- Social interaction/ Knowledge networking / Work predictability
- Social interaction increases communication effectiveness
- knowledge networking amplifies information productivity
- Less predictability requires more intensive and explicit communication with co-workers
Results
Others:
contradictory finding explanation (p296)
Comments & Questions:
1. the first measurement of culture is problematic because the same language may also have different cultural.
2. I cannot find that the relationship between three main factors of discontinues and performance is logically associated.
3. Face-to-face discussion but share information via e-mail and cloud technology. Can we say this is virtual team?
4. how do we determine virtual team based on the findings of this research? can we say in 7-point-scale, if workplace mobility is 5. Then is it the virtual team? I doubt that.
Definition
GDSS: A GDSS is a computer-based technology designed to help committees, project teams, and other small groups with activities such as problem identification and analysis, decision making, planning, creativity, conflict management, negotiation, and meeting management .
Structuration Theory: Structuration theory, developed in sociology to explain the evolution of large-scale social phenomena (Giddens, 1979), was being developed and refined by Poole.
AST argues that the effects of GDSSs on group processes and outcomes depend on the design of technology structures and on the emergent (adaptive) structures that form in the group as members interact with the technology over time.
Structuration
structuration can be defined as the process by which systems are produced and reproduced through group members’ use of rules and resources (Giddens, 1979; Poole, Seibold and McPhee, 1985).
Level 1 and 2 in GDSS
Level 1 features provide support for enhanced communication among group members. These features include idea listing, evaluation techniques such as voting or rating, and comment recording. Level 2 features provide decision support tools such as multi-criteria decision making, stakeholder analysis, and problem formulation.
Research Questions
What effects do GDSSs have on group processes and outcomes?
What meaningful dimensions underlie the design of GDSSs and how do these dimensions affect group processes and outcomes?
What additional types of support can facilitate GDSS use?
How does the process of using a GDSS mediate its impacts on group processes and outcomes?
Structure
Key Elements in the model
- Structure of Advanced IT
- Spirit
- (a) participatory decision making guided by rational discussion; (b) democratic, shared leadership; (c) efficient use of group resources; (d) confrontive, constructive conflict management; and (e) an informal, safe climate for the group.
- Other Sources of Structure
- Internal Group System
- Social Interaction ( Appropriation and Group Process)
- Emergent of source of structure
- Outcomes
- New Structures
Research Method
- Constructs and Scales
- Observation
Laboratory study and Field study ( data gather from two set of team through video, computer system use log, survey, and interview data)
Conclusions
the benefits of higher-order Level 2 features such as stakeholder analysis or problem formulation procedures, which may be substantially greater than those resulting from Level 1 tools
Facilitation, training, and other support are necessary for groups to capitalize on Level 2 features. It is also important to stress that while learning to use and interpret the results of Level 2 features requires an investment of time and resources, over the long term it can reduce the time and effort required to conduct a sound analysis and come to consensus
Even when facilitators are available, team leaders must spend time working with them to select procedures and plan meetings, as well as spend “social capital” convincing reluctant members to use the GDSS.
A major theme of the Minnesota GDSS research project was to encourage faithful use of the system, that is, use in line with the spirit built into the system. A second theme was the need to create groups that are capable of taking charge of the GDSS themselves
However, as groups become more independent and achieve greater facility in adapting the GDSS to their work (and vice versa), they also are likely to embark on ironic uses of the GDSS that violate the spirit of the technology.
The groups best situated to benefit from a GDSS are those with complex tasks, fair or good relationships among members, open communication, and some degree of comfort with information technology
Questions:
What are manual group and baseline group?
(1) groups with no support that were given a task and left to their own devices (Baseline groups), (2) groups with a manual version of the procedures built into the GDSS (Manual groups), and (3) groups with a GDSS (GDSS groups).
Problems:
The results are not organized very well and thereby very hard to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment