Perception of virtual team’s performance: A multinational exercise

Multinational companies are beginning to adopt a “virtual teams” strategy, due to the benefits of cost reduction and performance improvement. On the other hand, Managers and measurement systems are not adapted to this concept due to barriers to manage virtual teams. Barriers such as: language, culture and time zone are becoming key enablers for high performance teams. This paper intends to test a developed methodology to assess the perception of the performance of virtual teams by applying it to a global virtual environment. Tools as questionnaires, focus groups sessions and operations strategy planning techniques were utilized in this research aiming to measure the level of comprehension of such performance measures in different teams and identify factors that may improve their performance. This methodology was applied on 3 sites, in different countries and under the same management guidelines. The impact of subjective items as behavior over performance measurement systems is evident. Lack of clear communication, language barriers, miscomprehension of the objectives and cultural barriers negatively increase the impact of behavior on performance measurement. The identification and correction of these items is crucial for the success of a team.

[1]  Richard Reilly,et al.  The Role of Virtual Distance in Innovation and Success , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

[2]  Hamideh Afsarmanesh,et al.  Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline , 2005, J. Intell. Manuf..

[3]  Andy Neely,et al.  Performance measurement system design , 1995 .

[4]  Abbe Mowshowitz,et al.  On the theory of virtual organization , 1997 .

[5]  Andy Neely,et al.  Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems , 2000 .

[6]  D. Bacon.  A Comparison of Approaches to Importance-Performance Analysis , 2003 .

[7]  B. Rosen,et al.  Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams , 2007 .

[8]  Edward F. McDonough,et al.  Leading Global Product Development Teams , 2003 .

[9]  Mike Gregory,et al.  Servitization in manufacturing companies: a conceptualization, critical review, and research agenda , 2007 .

[10]  R. Soder,et al.  Principal Leadership and Student Achievement. , 1987 .

[11]  David L. Morgan,et al.  Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research , 1984 .

[12]  M. Porter.  From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy , 1989 .

[13]  Hing Kai Chan,et al.  Virtual organization for supply chain integration: Two cases in the textile and fashion retailing industry , 2010 .

[14]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Radical Innovation Without Collocation: A Case Study at Boeing-Rocketdyne , 2001, MIS Q..

[15]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes , 2003 .

[16]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[17]  Pamela R. Johnson,et al.  The “wonderland” of virtual teams , 2001 .

[18]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Towards The Flexible Form: How To Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments , 1996 .

[19]  C. Handy.  The age of unreason , 1989 .

[20]  Peter Tolmie,et al.  Some ’real’ problems of ’virtual’ organisation , 2001 .

[21]  Tony Beasley,et al.  The Characteristics of Performance Management Research — Implications and Challenges , 2004 .

[22]  Iuan-Yuan Lu,et al.  Adoption of virtual organization by Taiwanese electronics firms , 2005 .

[23]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[24]  Taylor Randall,et al.  Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms , 2003 .

[25]  Edson Pinheiro de Lima,et al.  Developing a methodology for assessing virtual teams’ performance perception , 2012 .

[26]  MajchrzakAnn,et al.  Radical innovation without collocation , 2001 .

[27]  Yuliya Kasperskaya.  Essays on causal performance measurement models , 2007 .

[28]  Thomas H. Johnson,et al.  Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting , 1987 .

[29]  R. Eccles,et al.  Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action , 1992 .

[30]  F. Selto,et al.  Causality in Performance Measurement Model , 2004 .

[31]  K. Platts,et al.  Supplier logistics performance measurement: Indications from a study in the automotive industry , 2004 .

[32]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[33]  Jean-François Henri,et al.  Management control systems and strategy: A resource-based perspective , 2006 .

[34]  Peter Miller,et al.  Virtual teams: a virtue for the conventional team , 2002 .

[35]  Nigel Slack,et al.  Operations management , 1994 .

[36]  Steven A. Melnyk,et al.  Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze , 2004 .

[37]  Diane E. Bailey,et al.  The advantages and challenges of working here, there anywhere, and anytime , 1999 .

[38]  A. Neely,et al.  Measuring performance in a changing business environment , 2003 .

[39]  A. Neely.  The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next? , 1999 .

[40]  E. McDonough,et al.  An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams , 2001 .

[41]  Sajda Qureshi,et al.  Adaptiveness in Virtual Teams: Organisational Challenges and Research Directions , 2001 .

[42]  Shimon Y. Nof.  Next generation of production research:: Wisdom, collaboration, and society , 1999 .

[43]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[44]  Thomas L. Albright,et al.  An investigation of the effect of Balanced Scorecard implementation on financial performance , 2004 .

[45]  H. Ansoff.  Corporate strategy : an analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion , 1965 .

[46]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research , 2005 .

[47]  P. Williamson,et al.  Is Your Innovation Process Global , 2004 .

[48]  Peggy Yuhas Byers,et al.  Focus Groups: A Qualitative Opportunity for Researchers , 1991 .

[49]  Bob Norton,et al.  Understanding the Virtual Organization , 1998 .

[50]  Andy Neely,et al.  A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems , 2002 .

[51]  Umit S. Bititci,et al.  Dynamics of performance measurement systems , 2000, APMS.

[52]  Robert Simons,et al.  Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems , 1991 .

[53]  Abbe Mowshowitz,et al.  Virtual Organization: A Vision of Management in the Information Age , 1994, Inf. Soc..

[54]  I. Zigurs.  Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? , 2003 .

[55]  Steve Mason,et al.  Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system , 2007 .

[56]  S.D.P. Flapper,et al.  Towards consistent performance management systems , 1996 .

[57]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Virtual team effectiveness: a proposed research agenda , 1999, Inf. Syst. J..

[58]  Stefano Tonchia,et al.  Performance measurement systems - Models, characteristics and measures , 2001 .

[59]  Mahmoud M. Yasin,et al.  A literature review of manufacturing performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research , 2004 .

[60]  Mike Kennerley,et al.  Managing through measures: a study of impact on performance , 2005 .

[61]  Andy Neely,et al.  Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process‐based approach , 2000 .

[62]  Jim Suchan,et al.  The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study , 2001 .

[63]  V. Corvello,et al.  Virtual forms for the organization of production: A comparative analysis , 2007 .

[64]  Gilad Ravid,et al.  Information sharing as enabler for the virtual team: an experimental approach to assessing the role of electronic mail in disintermediation , 2003, Inf. Syst. J..

[65]  R. Webb,et al.  Managers' Commitment to the Goals Contained in a Strategic Performance Measurement System* , 2004 .

[66]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  BALANCED SCORECARDS IN FINNISH COMPANIES: A RESEARCH NOTE , 2001 .

[67]  André de Waal,et al.  The Role of Behavioral Factors and National Cultures in Creating Effective Performance Management Systems , 2006 .

[68]  Tony Beasley,et al.  The characteristics of performance management research , 2013 .

[69]  Michel Lebas,et al.  Performance measurement and performance management , 1995 .

[70]  Andrew May,et al.  A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry , 2001 .

[71]  M. Malone.  The Virtual Corporation , 1993 .

[72]  R. E. Miles,et al.  Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms , 1986 .

[73]  Roberto Antonio Martins,et al.  Case Study on the Dimensions of Performance Measurement Systems Maturity , 2009 .

[74]  Umit Bititci,et al.  Dynamics of performance measurement systems , 2000 .

[75]  M. Maznevski,et al.  Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness , 2000 .

[76]  J. Browne,et al.  Extended and virtual enterprises – similarities and differences , 1999 .

[77]  Alessandro D'Atri,et al.  How Innovative are Virtual Enterprises? , 2005, ECIS.

[78]  R. Eccles.  The performance measurement manifesto. , 1991, Harvard business review.

[79]  John A. Martilla,et al.  Importance-Performance Analysis , 1977 .

[80]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[81]  Robert Johnston,et al.  ‘Good enough’ performance measurement: a trade-off between activity and action , 2002, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[82]  J. Magretta.  Why business models matter. , 2002, Harvard business review.