Enhancing Team Performance Through Tool Use: How Critical Technology-Related Issues Influence the Performance of Virtual Project Teams

Research problem: The project management of virtual teams differs from that of traditional ones. Traditional project risks, such as complexity, the uncertainty of factors influencing the project, and the high interdependency of project tasks must be managed alongside changed temporal, geographic, and cultural dimensions. Only a few studies have investigated the effect of critical technological issues, such as wrong tool selection or limited internet access on performance as well as team and team member satisfaction in virtual work settings. Research questions: How do critical technology-related issues concerning the selection and use of web-based tools influence the performance and satisfaction of virtual project teams? Literature review: Instead of categorizing virtual teams as a type of team that contrasts with traditional or face-to-face teams, the focus has shifted to virtualness as a characteristic present in all teams. Project teamwork is often integrated in university degree programs in order to prepare students appropriately for real-life projects. While these student teams are often not geographically spread across countries, they have a high degree of virtualness because of their diverse team composition, the necessity for working at different places, and the limited face-to-face meeting opportunities. Performance, effectiveness, and satisfaction are central issues in the evaluation and measurement of project teams: Team performance is often evaluated on the basis of acceptance of a specified output by a customer. Through specific mediating processes, team performance can alternatively be assessed by inquiring the team's perception on their performance. Effectiveness can be defined as the achievement of clear goals and objectives and it is often related to the team's performance. Finally, satisfaction can be defined as having three dimensions-satisfaction with the team, the satisfaction of meeting customer needs, and general satisfaction with extrinsic rewards and work. Technology use is substantial for distributed teamwork and can be assessed by the extent to which it supports communication, collaboration, and project-management tasks. Methodology: Fifteen teams were observed and interviewed over a two-year period. The resulting data were analyzed using a Grounded Theory approach, which revealed how the selection and use of tools for communication, collaboration, and project management in the different project activities influenced the team's performance. Results and conclusions: Our results contribute to practice by providing a number of guidelines for the management of virtual teams as well as knowledge required by companies wishing to launch projects with virtual teams. Differing performances of teams can, in many cases, be attributed to such conditions as: internet availability and bandwidth; lack of training for certain tools; the selection and appropriate use of tools; integrated tool support for task management; as well as the promotion of transparency about progress made. It was found that restrictions in internet access of even a single member within a team limited the team's technological choices, which affected the team's performance.

[1]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Taking CSCW seriously , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[2]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[3]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experiment , 1994 .

[4]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  --Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration : Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work , 2001 .

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

[6]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development , 2000, DATB.

[7]  David J. Pauleen,et al.  An Inductively Derived Model of Leader-Initiated Relationship Building with Virtual Team Members , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[9]  Jon R. Katzenbach,et al.  Why Teams Matter , 1992 .

[10]  Susan L. Murray,et al.  Leading virtual teams , 2021, Organizational Dynamics.

[11]  Timothy R. Kayworth,et al.  The global virtual manager: a prescription for success , 2000 .

[12]  Kimberly A. Furumo,et al.  Counting the cost of virtual teams , 2007, CACM.

[13]  Pamela Estes Brewer,et al.  Miscommunication in International Virtual Workplaces: A Report on a Multicase Study , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[14]  Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema,et al.  Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual work settings , 2013 .

[15]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  Efficacy in Technology-Mediated Distributed Teams , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  A. Bandura Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[17]  Michael D. Coovert,et al.  Stepping up to the challenge: A critical examination of face-to-face and computer-mediated team decision making. , 2002 .

[18]  N. wenyama,et al.  WHAT DOES COMPUTER SUPPORT FOR COOPERATIVE WORK MEAN ? A STRUCTURATIONAL ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK , 2001 .

[19]  Linda Duxbury,et al.  Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams , 2010, Inf. Syst. J..

[20]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Reconceptualizing Virtual Teaming from a Constitutive Perspective Review, Redirection, and Research Agenda , 2008 .

[21]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Discontinuities and continuities: a new way to understand virtual work , 2002, Inf. Technol. People.

[22]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[23]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Review Article: Reviewing the impact of virtual teams in the information age , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

[24]  John Impagliazzo,et al.  Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report , 2006, SIGCSE '06.

[25]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[26]  Madelyn Flammia,et al.  Leadership Roles, Socioemotional Communication Strategies, and Technology Use of Irish and US Students in Virtual Teams , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[27]  P. Drucker,et al.  Leading teams: setting the stage for great performances [Book Review] , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[28]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  NESSIE: An awareness environment for cooperative settings , 1999, ECSCW.

[29]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[30]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  The Impact of Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Interaction , 2004 .

[31]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[33]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Interrogating the dynamics of distributed collaboration: findings from four field studies on CSCW use , 2008 .

[34]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[35]  A. Sivunen,et al.  Team leaders' technology choice in virtual teams , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[36]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Computer support for cooperative work in advanced manufacturing , 1991 .

[37]  Kregg Aytes,et al.  Media effects on the development of cohesion and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups - An analysis of results from two longitudinal studies , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[38]  Florian Kunze,et al.  The role of trust climate in virtual teams , 2012 .

[39]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[40]  Elsje Scott,et al.  The Alignment of Software Testing Skills of IS Students with Industry Practices - A South African Perspective , 2004, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[41]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[42]  Marcus Sanchez Svensson,et al.  Configuring Awareness , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[43]  Allen S. Lee Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation , 1994, MIS Q..

[44]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Groups and Productivity; Analyzing the Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams , 1988 .

[45]  Zahari Taha,et al.  Virtual Teams: A Literature Review , 2009 .

[46]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Media Choices and Trust in Partially Distributed Global Teams , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

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

[48]  Robert Brown,et al.  Ensuring Success and Quality through the Use of Standards in Team Projects: Students' Perceptions , 2009, WCCE.

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

[50]  Mahesh S. Raisinghani,et al.  An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[51]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[52]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[53]  Mary-Beth France Watson-Manheim,et al.  Support for Communication-Based Work Processes in Virtual Work , 2002 .

[54]  B. N. Baker,et al.  Factors Affecting Project Success , 2008 .

[55]  Dušan Marković,et al.  Challenges in managing cross-cultural virtual project teams , 2014 .

[56]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  The Problem with `Awareness': Introductory Remarks on `Awareness in CSCW' , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[57]  Deborah Jude-York,et al.  Virtual Teaming: Breaking the Boundaries of Time and Place , 1999 .

[58]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[59]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[60]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Vital Signs for Virtual Teams: An Empirically Developed Trigger Model for Technology Adaptation Interventions , 2010, MIS Q..

[61]  C. Marlene Fiol,et al.  Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[62]  Lucy Gilson,et al.  Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? , 2004 .

[63]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  The Role of Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective , 2011, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[64]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[65]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  IS 2002 Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems , 1996, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[66]  Kenneth McBey,et al.  Perceptions of team performance , 2004 .

[67]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[68]  Kil-Soo Suh,et al.  Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[69]  R. Suddaby From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not , 2006 .

[70]  M. Lind The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups , 1999 .

[71]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[72]  V. Savicki,et al.  Gender, Group Composition, and Task Type in Small Task Groups Using Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[73]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams , 2004 .

[74]  D. L. Gladstein Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[75]  Thomas Herrmann,et al.  Intertwining perspectives and negotiation , 1999, GROUP.

[76]  Kent Marett,et al.  An Examination of Deception in Virtual Teams: Effects of Deception on Task Performance, Mutuality, and Trust , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[77]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[78]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[79]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems , 2009, Inf. Syst. J..

[80]  A. Hollingshead Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media , 1996 .

[81]  V. Savicki,et al.  Gender and group composition in small task groups using computer-mediated communication , 1996 .

[82]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Technology Alignment: A New Area in Virtual Team Research , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[83]  Christine Uber Grosse,et al.  Managing Communication within Virtual Intercultural Teams , 2002 .

[84]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology adaption: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team 1 , 2000 .

[85]  John D'Ambra,et al.  Computer-mediated communication and media preference: An investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task equivocality and media richness , 1998, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[86]  B. Baltes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[87]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer-Supported Inter-Organizational Virtual Team , 2000, MIS Q..

[88]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

[89]  Susanne Geister,et al.  Effects of Process Feedback on Motivation, Satisfaction, and Performance in Virtual Teams , 2006 .

[90]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Does Medium Matter? A Comparison of Initial Meeting Modes for Virtual Teams , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[91]  William H. DeLone,et al.  Global boundaries, task processes and IS project success: a field study , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[92]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[93]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[94]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future , 1998 .

[95]  Ingrid Mulder,et al.  Virtual Teams and the Appropriation of Communication Technology: Exploring the Concept of Media Stickiness , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[96]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

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