Degree of Virtuality: A Theoretical Framework of Factors Influencing Technology Use by Virtual Teams

Virtual teams (VTs) are groups in organizations separated by organizational, spatial and/or temporal distance. Innovative information technology infrastructure coupled with the growing internationalization of commercial activity has augmented the need for VTs. But not all VTs are equally virtual. A VT’s environment, characterized by the pressures the team experiences to collaborate, the inherent orientation towards collaborative work and the drive to use technology, together influence the degree of virtuality of a VT. This paper proposes two dimensions of degree of virtuality including scale and sophistication corresponding to quantity and quality of use of VT technology, thus creating a ScaSo matrix. The paper presents propositions describing the influence of various factors in the VT environment on the degree of virtuality. Such factors include information intensity, performance pressures, group culture, leadership orientation, IT orientation and organizational IT maturity. The paper concludes with implications and proposal for further research.

[1]  Mo Adam Mahmood,et al.  Factors Affecting Information Technology Usage: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2001, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[2]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Measuring the Extent of EDI Usage in Complex Organizations: Strategies and Illustrative Examples , 1996, MIS Q..

[3]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Group decision support systems: a new frontier , 1984, DATB.

[4]  Geoffrey S. Hubona,et al.  The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

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

[6]  Robert F. Easley,et al.  Relating Collaborative Technology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Making knowledge work in virtual teams , 2007, CACM.

[8]  Sanjiv D. Vaidya,et al.  Collaborative Technology Use in Organizations: A Typology , 2005, AMCIS.

[9]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  A learning process in email use - a longitudinal case study of the interaction between organization and technology , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[10]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  Determinants of intranet diffusion and infusion , 2001 .

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

[12]  E. T. Mba,et al.  Organizational Behaviour - I , 2008 .

[13]  A. Majchrzak,et al.  Leading Virtual Teams , 2007 .

[14]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology , 1995, MIS Q..

[15]  Deepinder S. Bajwa,et al.  Does Size Matter? An Investigation of Collaborative Information Technology Adoption by US Firms , 2003 .

[16]  Timothy Shea,et al.  The Effect of Virtual Team Membership on Attitudes towards Technology Usage: A Study of Student Attitudes in the United States , 2005 .

[17]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[18]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  Building Trust and Cooperation through Technology Adaptation in Virtual Teams: Empirical Field Evidence , 2008, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[19]  D. Campbell.  Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[20]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[21]  Sanjiv D. Vaidya,et al.  A Macro-Level Approach to Understanding Use of E-Collaboration Technologies , 2008 .

[22]  M. Porter,et al.  How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage , 1985 .

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

[24]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

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

[26]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[27]  Anol Bhattacherjee.  Managerial Influences on Intraorganizational Information Technology Use: A Principal-Agent Model , 1998 .

[28]  R. Wood.  Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[29]  Fred D. Davis.  A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[30]  Yuhyung Shin,et al.  A Person-Environment Fit Model for Virtual Organizations , 2004 .

[31]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Task and technology interaction (TTI): a theory of technological support for group tasks , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[32]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

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

[34]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

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