Global design- Communication Technology in Virtual Teams

2013-14

Pulkit Vijayvargiya

Reg. No. 201388279

2013-14

Use of Communication Technology in Virtual Teams

Use of Communication Technology in Virtual Teams 2013-14

2

University of Strathclyde

“I declare that this submission is entirely my own original work.

I declare that, except where fully reference direct quotations have been included, no aspect

of this submission has been copied from any other source.

I declare that all other works cited in this submission have been appropriately referenced.

I understand that any act of Academic Dishonesty such as plagiarism or collusion may result

in the non-award of my degree.”

Signature: Pulkit Vijayvargiya

Date: 8/1/2014


3


Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Background (Literature Review): ............................................................................................................ 6

Virtual Teams: ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Framework for Communication Technology (CT) ............................................................................... 8

Theoretical Framework of CT: ......................................................................................................... 9

Classification of Communication Technologies (CT): .................................................................... 10

Conceptual Framework of CT:....................................................................................................... 11

Review of Global Project: ...................................................................................................................... 12

Challenges during the Project “Plane and Simple”: .......................................................................... 15

Recommendations: ............................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................................ 18

References: ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Categorization of virtual teams ................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2: An illustration of Media Synchronicity theory ......................................................................... 9

Figure 3:A model on the basis of TTFT and MST including the factor of time. H=high; L= low ............ 10

Figure 4: Virtual Team Structure of project “Plane and Simple” .......................................................... 12

Figure 5: C.T. Selection on the basis of MST categorization ................................................................. 13

Figure 6 : Use of different technologies via Mobile phones (Snapshots) ............................................. 14

Table of Tables

Table 1 : Difference between Virtual teams and traditional teams ....................................................... 6

Table 2: Advantages of virtual team ....................................................................................................... 7

Table 3 :A Conceptual framework for Assessing C.T. [23] .................................................................... 11

Table 4 : Synchronous C.T usage per week ........................................................................................... 14

Table 5 : Asynchronous C.T usage per week ......................................................................................... 14


4


Abstract Today we are living in a world of modern technology where distances are no more barriers for

communication. With the help of advanced Communication Technologies (CT) businesses and

organizations are transforming in to a new virtual domain of globally distributed teams. They are far

apart from each other but still doing business together as a single team with the help of numerous

CTs available in the market. This advancement in organization has created several challenges and

problems. The biggest challengeamong organizations is “Which CT to use where and how to use it

effectively”? The main purpose of this paper is to answer this question with the help of different CT

selection theories. A framework for the use of CT is brought forth in this paper in order to do a

critical review of a Global design project named as“Plane & Simple”.

.


5


Introduction Today, critical customer requirements, globalized business and a high-end development in

technology have led to robust business competition and market uncertainty. In this world of

globalization and complex competition pressure, the way how organizations are working is

completely changed [1]. A group of people seating around a spider like Polycom speaker phone or a

big video screen in any multiple number of remote location is a very common thing to spot in

companies. With the help of new advanced technologies many organizations are now converting in

to High-tech firms where a new concept of “Virtual Teams” is developing and “Technology” works as

a backbone of this virtual team. Technology plays a major role by supporting in wide variety of

applications in a virtual team like information sharing, data storing, data modelling, information

implementation etc. In this report mainly communication technology (CT) and its role in

collaboration is discussed. A theoretical and conceptual framework of communication technology is

presented with different categories; explaining which technology must be used for which task and

how to use them more effectively. A critical review of a ‘Global Design Project’ accomplished by a

virtual team of students, with the challenges they faced and recommendations are presented in the

later parts of the report.


6


Background (Literature Review):

Virtual Teams: Before defining the idea behind virtual teams it is important to define a traditional team because

“teams” impart several meanings in different settings. A Team is a group of people with specific skills

who are devoted to achieve a common goal working in collaboration with other people holding a

responsibility [2]. A traditional team is largely based on three basic building blocks of team building:

Trust, Collaboration and Individual contribution [3].

A virtual team is a more advanced elevated form of traditional teams. Many researches have been

done in the field of virtual teams; explaining the difference of virtual teams over traditional teams [4,

5, 6, 7], refer table 1 explaining the main differences between both as per the view of different

scholars. A virtual team is defined as “a group of non-collocated people geographically or

organizationally dispersed and they collaborate through communication technologies ibn order trio

achieve a common goal” *3+. In other words virtual teams are collection of individuals who interact

through mutually dependent task guided by a common goal and work across distance, time and

organisational boundaries using strong links of communication technologies” *4+.

Table 1 :Difference between Virtual teams and traditional teams

Lipnacket al [3] created a model for categorization of virtual teams considering organization and

space-time as scale dimension. They suggested as the level of space-time and organization increases

complexity of virtual team is also increases. They find out that distributed cross organizational teams

are the most complex teams (Refer figure 1). Further by including the idea of external joint venture

and alliances to create a more critical model for virtual teams they find out that Global alliance are

the most complex form of virtual teams in the present scenario [3].


7


Figure 1: Categorization of virtual teams

Many papers are published discussing the benefits of employing virtual team approach in

organizations [8. 9, 10, 11, 12]. The pervasiveness of virtual team concept and globalization is done

by many scholars whole over the world because of its numerous benefits over traditional teams.

(Refer Table 2). With the help of globally distributed teams it is now possible for the firms to access

the global talent pool with very less expenses and increase the productivity by responding more

quickly to the changes in the environment [9, 10]. One of the biggest concern of safety and wastage

of time while travelling is successfully overcome by the use of virtual teams in organizations. Now it

is possible for organizations to design and introduce potential new products for specific national

markets as with the help of globally distributed teams sensitive barrier of diverse local culture can be

understood and defeated efficiently. [10]

Table 2: Advantages of virtual team


8


However along with potential benefits, virtual teams also bring along with them several challenges

like time zone difference, language barriers, trust, different cultures, trust, hard leadership,

communication, information sharing etc. This is where “Communication Technology (CT)” came in to

picture; as it is implanted in several definitions of virtual teams that, use of CT is the back bone of

collaboration in a virtual team [3]. Either it is communication or information sharing; CT plays the

core supporting role to perform team tasks.

Framework for Communication Technology (CT) For a globalized organization, working in a virtual team; it is very important to understand which

technology they are using and where. Progress of a project based on virtual team can be restricted

because of inappropriate use of technology [13]. Past researches suggests that although CT based

virtual teams are good in brainstorming [14, 15] and decision making tasks [16], they are not

efficient in problem-solving and conflict management tasks [17]. Also [18] suggests that CT based

virtual teams are lower in productivity in terms of judgment making tasks as compared to face to

face teams. Many evidences suggests that millions of dollars are misused by companies for the

access and installation of advanced CT systems, which they not even needed or ignored to use

because of lack of its awareness and accessibility [19]. Thus a proper judgment of utility of CT and its

potential effect on team members and organizations is required before adapting it.

Scholars have proposed many theories and models in order to make working in virtual teams more

effective. [13] Two of the main theories in this direction are “Task-tech. fit theory (TTFT)” [20] and

“Media synchronicity theory (MST)” *22+.

Task-Tech fit theory (TTFT): According to this theory “specific capabilities of CTs are better suitable

for managing specific type of work in virtual teams”. *20+ It suggests that work in a virtual team can

be categorized as per its level of criticality and similarly CT also differs in the extent of supporting a

particular work. For example e-mail technology cannot support a work related to real time co-

ordination, it can support only the work based on asynchronous group communication. Thus TTFT

provides a useful direction for virtual teams to assess how they can better select specific technology

for particular task to meet their needs as they progress through their project. [21]

Media Synchronicity Theory (MST): This theory is based on the concept of media richness [22],

which provides a managerial model for CT selection. Richness of a CT is the measure of ability of

information to be understandable with change of time. According to MST effectiveness with which

information is exchanged is based on the type CT used. The focus of this theory is on the ability of CT

to transfer information in virtual interactions as compared to face to face interactions [22]. In MST a

model for the evaluation of different CTs is developed on the basis of five different features: (1)


9


Immediacy of feedback (Capacity to instantly exchange feedbacks), (2) Symbol variety (Variety of

cues that can be exchanged), (3) Parallelism (Level of congruency of number of simultaneous

participants), (4) Rehearsability (Capability to prepare or rehearse beforehand) (5) Reprocessability

(Capability of recording all communication information) [13]. (Refer figure 2) For example a

telephone based technology is high in feedback and variety of symbol but because of its real time

nature it is low in Parallelism, Rehearsability and Reprocessability.

Figure 2: An illustration of Media Synchronicity theory [13]

Theoretical Framework of CT: Thus by knowing the nature of the work in a virtual team, specific

technology can be selected and a best technology to task match can be done using TFT and MST

theories. But another big challenge for virtual team is to decide which technology is to be used for a

particular stage of project. As different stages of a virtual tem project also influences the choice of

CT a new model on the basis of TTFT and MST including the factor of time is developed [13]. (Refer

figure 3) In this model CTs are divided in to three main categories on the basis of social challenges (1)

Conflict (Further divided as Relationship, task and process conflict), (2) Motivation/confidence

building and (3) Affect management [13]. A conflict is a very common factor arises in a virtual team

using CT. It is defined as the perception of disagreement or inconsistency among team members


10


[23]. Further loose of co0nfidense and negativity are other big challenges in a technology dependent

virtual team which give rise to categories Motivation/confidence building and Affect management.

Figure 3: A model on the basis of TTFT and MST including the factor of time. H=high; L= low

Classification of Communication Technologies (CT): CTs are mainly divided on the basis of

three main characteristics named as Synchronous and Asynchronous interaction, degree of social

presence and level of media richness in the technology [24].

Synchronous and Asynchronous CT: Synchronous CTs are the technology which enables users to

interact at same time, for example: video conferencing, telecommunication, web chat room etc. On

the other hand Asynchronous CTs are those which enable interaction of users at different times, for

example: email, text messenger etc. New Technologies such as blogs and online forums allows both

synchronous and asynchronous communication. [25]

Social presence: Social presence indicates the level of interaction provided by a CT. Technologies

such as video conferencing possess high level of social presence as compared to emails. Thus the

task where high level of interaction is required, technology of high social presence value must be

used [26].

Media Richness: Media richness also indicates the level of interaction provided by a CT, it is

differentiated with social presence by the means of its orientation. It is oriented towards technology

factors on the other hand social presence is oriented towards human factors [27]. A high value of

media richness signifies high ability of CT to provide prompt feedback, variety of symbols, high

parallelism, high rehearsability, and high reprocessability [22].


11


Conceptual Framework of CT: Based on the basis of above categories all CTs are broadly divided

in to three main types: Electronic message systems, Audio and video systems and Collaboration

supporting systems [24]. Considering different categories and types of CT a conceptual framework

can be generated in order to assess different CT systems [23]. (Refer table 3) Table 3 indicates

various types of CTs assessed on the basis of categories as Synchronous and Asynchronous, level of

social presence(Low to high) and degree of media richness (lean to rich). Thus different options of CT

during performing different tasks in a virtual team can be selected on the basis of conceptual

framework. For instance, different CT options with respect to specific task and number of people

involved in a virtual team is briefly mentioned in Appendix-A [24]

Table 3 : A Conceptual framework for Assessing C.T. [23]


12


Review of Global Project: A collaborative global design project named as “Plane and Simple” was carried out between

students of three different universities: (1) University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, (2) City University

London, London and (3) University of Malta, Malta. The project was 8 weeks long and because of its

collaborative and geographically distributed team nature student teams from different universities

worked together as a virtual team using various communication and information technologies.

Overall team was consisting of 9 students including 5 from Glasgow, 2 from London and 3 from

Malta. All teams worked together as a virtual team towards the common goal of “Designing a more

effective aeroplane tray table”. A complete team structure with different project stages is

mentioned in figure 4.

Figure 4: Virtual Team Structure of project “Plane and Simple”

During each stage of the project from initial brain storming to final prototype making, all jobs are

done in collaboration of whole virtual team and different types of CTs are used by the team. Because

of thousands of CT available around the market, selection of appropriate CT during different stages

of project was a big challenge for the team. Using selection criteria mentioned in the conceptual

framework (Refer table 3) and in addition to this considering the cost factor and availability on

mobile, team came up with six different types of CTs to be used during the project as Polycom,

Google Hangout/Skype and Cisco Jabber as Synchronous CT tools and Whatsapp, Facebook and

Office 365(email) as asynchronous CT tools.

Collaboration through C.T.


City University London

University of Malta

• Project management

• Problem definition

• Concept design• Detail Design• Final

presentation

Poster

Presentation

Working Model

VIRTUAL TEAM OUTCOMESPROJECT STAGES


13


Figure 5: C.T. Selection on the basis of MST categorization

A further categorization in order to select particular CT for specific task in project is done on the

basis of MST (See figure 5) they are finally arranged on the time frame of the project as per the

theoretical frame work. An illustration of each technology usage per week as synchronous and

asynchronous means of communication is described in (table 4 and 5). Cisco Jabber’s free version

which only supports audio exchange was selected as a synchronous tool to be used at initial stages

by the team but due to its lack of parallelism ability it was not used at any other stage. Polycom and

Google hangout were selected as synchronous tools which helped team in videoconferencing and

web conferencing, because of their high media richness they are mostly used at initial stages of

project for proper understanding but due to technical complexity of Polycom; Google hangout was

used mostly throughout the project (11 hours of video chat total). Because of High in terms of

immediate feedback, free ware, ease of use and better support on mobile devices; WhatsApp was

came up as the mostly used asynchronous tool (about 160 texts exchanged total) and Facebook was

used for planning meetings. In addition to this other tool called as Dropbox (based on cloud storage)

which was mainly used as data storage tool by the team was also sometimes used for some


14


asynchronous communications. All these tools were supported by the mobile devices and team

created group profiles online where all the communications occurred among all users. (See figure 6)

Table 4 : Synchronous C.T usage per week

Table 5 : Asynchronous C.T usage per week

Figure 6 : Use of different technologies via Mobile phones (Snapshots)

Synchronous Communications

Mode of Communication (Tool) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 Total Hours

Video Conferencing (POLYCOM) 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Video Conferencing (Google Hangouts) 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 11

Audio Conferencing (CISCO) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Asynchronous Communications

Mode of Communication (Tool) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 Total

Texts (WHATSAPP) 7 26 4 33 32 19 16 26 163

Social Media Posts (FACEBOOK) 7 11 5 4 14 21 3 5 63

Emails (OFFICE 365) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3


15


Challenges during the Project “Plane and Simple”: Some of the major technical challenges like discomfort with technology, equipment malfunction,

task-technology mismatch etc. can lead to major productivity loss in a virtual team [24]. Being virtual

in nature “Plane and Simple” project team faced many problems and challenges during the whole

project work while communicating through various technologies. Main challenges faced by the

“Plane and Simple” team are:

Difference in time zone and language: Although new advanced technologies supports in

overcoming both these barriers but due to limitation of use of CT(CT must be a free ware)

team “Plane and Easy” faced many challenges throughout the project. Researches

successfully showed that as the difference in time zone increases the performance of team

decreases [29]. Main problems faced are either deciding the meeting time or finishing up of

meetings earlier because of one hour of difference in time zone of Malta and U.K. Also due

to presence of many non-native speakers in the team it was very difficult for the team to

understand and interpret team’s conversations during use of different CT systems.

Selection of CT: Even with the help of various selection theories team faced many

challenges in the selection of right CT at right time. Many activities are delayed because of

the confusion in the selection of best technology. As cost is one of the issues team is forced

to select CTs which are free of cost. For instance, team first decided to use Skype for video

conferencing but later realized that it has limited access in the free version thus team

switched to Polycom video conferencing system but due to its complexity to use team

finally switched to Google hangout.

Technical unawareness: During the project team faced a major problem in employing new

technology for communication. For example, Team from Malta were not aware of many

features of new technologies like Google hangout. As Polycom system was used many times

as the tool for video conferencing, due to lack of knowledge of Malta team in the set up and

controlling of Polycom system; every time whole virtual team has to wait. It results in

significant loss of time of whole team. Thus team faced many problems in the end in

finishing the task as per deadlines.

Ineffective Communication: One of the major drawbacks of most of Synchronous CTs is that

they are based on internet network [24]. Thus availability of internet network and its quality

plays an important role in the whole communications quality and effectiveness. A poor

internet connection will lead to problems like time lag and no picture during video. Many

times because of poor internet facility in Glasgow; team faced many interruptions while

communication. It also some time resulted in wrong information transfer in the team which


16


results in unsuccessful task and long explanation of deeds via asynchronous communication

tools.

Lack of feedback: Due to lack of awareness and feedback many times it happens that one

teammate didn’t knows if other team mate has seen the information sent in case of many

asynchronous CTs, which finally results in the delay of project activities. [13] For example

during “Plane and Simple” project a complete CAD drawing of model was sent to Glasgow

team by London team via email in order to create prototype but no one has seen that

information and London team was not aware of this fact. As result of this manufacturing of

prototype was delayed by one week.

Use of multiple CT: Use of multiple CT especially for asynchronous communication (For

example: Whatsapp, email and Facebook are used during project) results in accumulation of

huge information which leads to confusion and frustration among team members [27].

Lack of trust: Lack of trust in virtual team mates is the outcome of lack of awareness and

relatively low social relationship in virtual team collaborating using CT [28]. During

synchronous communication team always follows “stay on task” attitude and avoids social

interaction. Similarly, due to lack in richness of asynchronous communication important

factor of friendship building is escaped among a virtual team. This problem finally results in

lack of responsibility and team spirit in a virtual team. Many issues regarding leadership and

job responsibilities are developed in team “Plane and Simple” throughout the project

because of lack of trust among team members.


17


Recommendations: Technology is the key root element that makes collaboration in virtual teams possible. If different

technology challenges are not handled properly it results in an unproductive virtual team with

frustrated team members. Thus it is very important for a virtual team to better realize the use of

technology [24]. CT tools with features which fulfil all group needs and supports both synchronous

and asynchronous interactions must be used. Main steps which a virtual team must follow to

effectively use technology for communication are setting a technology protocol, right selection of

technology and training of team members.

Technology protocol: Restriction to the use of CT in a virtual team up to a certain level with rules

and standardizations is termed as a technology protocol. It is like a code of conduct agreed by whole

team to follow certain rules while communication. It will help to reduce the frustration and

confusion created in a virtual team because of complex technology. Also by the standardizing the

media exchanged (for example: An email must be of short length and must be of standard format

etc.) helps in overcome major technical challenges like discomfort with technology, ineffective

communication, lack of feedback and lack of trust. [24]

Use of right technology: Selection of right technology is the key factor which leads to a successful

virtual team [13]. A careful strategy must be planned while selecting a CT. An optimal strategy would

be to make an initial choice based on the theoretical and conceptual framework presented in the

paper and finally matching the technology as per the richness of media and degree of collaboration

required by the task. Major challenges including ineffective communication, lack of feedback and

trust can be solved with the right selection of CT. Also in a situation when a task requires a very high

level of collaboration which is not possible by a virtual meeting than a face to face meeting with

agreement from all team members either including all or some of the team members must be

planned. [30]

Training of Team members: With the increase in the complexity of CT systems, it is important to

provide time to time training to virtual team in order to get the best use of technology [27]. Full

advantage of a selected technology is possible only when it is used correctly. Training must include

all the aspects of effective use of technology like its features, dealing with malfunctioning,

maintenance etc. All major problems like Discomfort with technology, Unawareness, Task-

technology mismatch etc. can be solved with the help of proper training of team members.

Also by sharing important information like schedule, agenda etc. well before a virtual meeting and

leave some time for socializing at the end or beginning of the meeting will help in building social

relationship and trust among team members. [27]


18


Conclusion: With the best selection of Communication Technologies (CT), challenges of a virtual team can be

subdue up to great extent. With help of frame work provided for CT on the basis of TTFT and MST

organization can make the initial choices of CT to be used. This was clearly reflected by the review of

Global design project “Plane and Simple”. A systematic use of CT helped them to accomplish the

project successfully. But inspiteof best selection of communication technology for collaboration,

“Plane and simple” team faced many challenges. Main challenges occurred due to technical

unawareness, multiple CT options, lack of feedback and ineffective communication because of

technical problems. Thus a unified CT system which is capable of overcoming all these challenges is

still required to be invented. However with the implementation of technology protocol, right

selection of technology and training of team members in an organization, new heights in the era of

“use of CT in virtual teams” can be achieved.


19


References: [1] Snyder, B. 2003. Teams that span time zones face new work

rules.www.gsb.stanford.edu//news/bmag/sbsm0305/feature_virtual_ teams.shtml [2] Katzenbach, J., and Douglas, S. 1999. The Wisdom of Teams:Creating the High Performance

Organization. New York: Harper Perennial. [3] Lipnack, J., and Stamps, J. Virtual Teams: People Working Across Boundaries

WithTechnology. New York: Wiley, 2000. [4] Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational

Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351. [5] Curseu, P. L., Schalk, R., & Wessel, I. (2008). How to virtual teams process information?

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 628-652. [6] Schlenkrich, L., &Upfold, C. (2009). A guideline for virtual team managers. Electronic Journal

of Information Systems Evaluation, 12(1), 109-118. [7] Ahuja, J. (2010). A study of virtuality impact on team performance. IUP Journal of

Management Research, 9(5), 27-56. [8] Bergiel, B. J., Bergiel, E. B., &Balsmeier, P. W. (2008). Nature of virtual teams: A summary of

their advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), 99-110. [9] LaBrosse, M. (2008). Managing virtual teams. Employment Relations Today, 35(2), 81-86. [10] Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication technology

impacts on global virtual teams. Information & Management, 45(2), 131-142. [11] Kuruppuarachchi, P. R. (2009). Virtual team concepts in projects: A case study. Project

Management Journal, 40(2), 19-33. [12] Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2009). How to manage virtual teams. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 50(4), 63-68. [13] Likoebe M. Maruping and R. Agarwal, (2004) Managing Team Interpersonal Processes

Through Technology:A Task–Technology Fit Perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 6, 975–990

[14] Dennis, A. R., &Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531–537.

[15] Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Brainstorming electronically. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 137–142.

[16] Sambamurthy, V., Poole, M. S., & Kelly, J. (1993). The effects of variations in GDSS capabilities on decision-making processes in groups. Small Group Research, 24, 523–546

[17] Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97.

[18] Adrianson, L., &Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behavior and Information Technology, 10(4), 281–296.

[19] Castella, V., Abad, A., Alonso, F., & Silla, J. (2000). The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behaviour through three different communication media. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16 (2), 141– 159.

[20] Goodhue, D. L. (1988). IS attitudes: Toward theoretical and definition clarity. Database, 19(3/4), 6–15.

[21] Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 167–193.

[22] Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–368.

[23] Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615–632.

[24] J.Nemiro, M.Beyerlein, L. Bradley, S.Beyerlein,(2008). The Handbook of high-Performance Virtual,John Wiley & Sons.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0305/feature_virtual_%20teams.shtml


20


[25] Duarte, D., & Snyder, N. (2001). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey - Bass.

[26] Piccoli, G. (2001). Virtual teams: An investigation of the determinants of team effectiveness and the contribution of managerial behaviour control. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (08), 3240A.

[27] C.Steinfield, (2004). Virtual Teams and Group Collaboration Technologies:Challenges inSupporting Distributed Groups.

[28] Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Knoll, K.; and Leidner, D.E. (1998), Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trustin global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 4, 29-64.

[29] M. Gothe, K. Fryer, (2008). “Global software development and delivery: Trendsand challenges,” IBM Developer Works.

[30] Settle - Murphy, N., & Young, J. (2006). Getting great results out of virtual meetings. RetrievedJuly 24, 2006, from http://www.guidedinsights.com/chrysalis-ezine-communique.asp

http://www.guidedinsights.com/chrysalis-ezine-communique.asp

http://www.guidedinsights.com/chrysalis-ezine-communique.asp


21


Appendix A

Appendix A: Different CT options with respect to specific task and number of people

Documents

Global design- Communication Technology in Virtual Teams