Webcams and virtual teams: an impact model

Purpose – The paper aims to address the question, “What is the impact of web-based video via webcams on virtual team trust and effectiveness?” Change and evolution in team perceptions over time are described. The result is the creation of a theoretical model describing the effect of webcams on virtual team development. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative phenomenological heuristic case study was used to explore the individual expectations and experiences of the team members over a six-week period. To strengthen reliability and validity, two qualitative methods, content analysis and constant comparative analysis — a means of grounded theory, were used to both test the historic basis of the existing literature on trust and effectiveness in virtual teams and to explore how the use of webcams influenced the work, interactions and effectiveness of a virtual team. Both qualitative methods involved different pairs of researchers using inter-rater coefficients to address coding reliability and validity. Results from the two methods were then compared and contrasted. Findings – The resulting model highlights the importance of ongoing, formal differentiated training on new technology. This research also suggests careful management of technology change and its deployment to enhance outcomes of various organization forms. Research limitations/implications – Given the nature of the qualitative study, the findings are not generalizable, but may illumine the understanding of webcams and technology adaptation in similar virtual teams. Practical implications – The resulting model highlights the importance of ongoing, formal differentiated training on new technology. This research also suggests careful management of technology change and its deployment to enhance outcomes of various organization forms. The study incorporates Technology Acceptance Theory and applications of the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory. Originality/value – With the increase in bandwidth on the Internet, technologies such as webcams have become more viable for use in virtual teams.

[1]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Virtual Team Trust: Instrument Development and Validation in an IS Educational Environment , 2003, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[2]  Thomas J. Palmeri,et al.  Theories of automaticity and the power law of practice. , 1999 .

[3]  W. E. Holland,et al.  A Cross-Validation Study of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory in Three Research and Development Organizations , 1978 .

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

[5]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  C. C. Snow,et al.  Use transnational teams to globalize your company , 1996 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[8]  Hayward P. Andres.  The Impact of Communication Medium on Virtual Team Group Process , 2006, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[9]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Interaction in a Dyad , 1968 .

[10]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[12]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[13]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Peter C. Rasker,et al.  Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic planning , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[16]  Shirley J. Gilbert,et al.  THE COMMUNICATION OF SELF‐DISCLOSURE: LEVEL VERSUS VALENCE1 , 1975 .

[17]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving , 2001 .

[18]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[19]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[20]  Joel Olson,et al.  Virtual Team Effectiveness And Sequence Of Conditions , 2012, BIOINFORMATICS 2012.

[21]  A. Noll.  Anatomy of a failure: picturephone revisited , 1992 .

[22]  Yolande E. Chan,et al.  Leading the development and implementation of collaborative interorganizational systems , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[23]  Edson Pinheiro de Lima,et al.  Perception of virtual team’s performance: A multinational exercise , 2012 .

[24]  J Carletta,et al.  The effects of multimedia communication technology on non-collocated teams: a case study , 2000, Ergonomics.

[25]  J. Hollenbeck,et al.  Computer-assisted communication and team decision-making performance: the moderating effect of openness to experience. , 2002 .

[26]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Face-to-face group work compared to remote group work with and without video. , 1997 .

[27]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[28]  L. L. Cummings,et al.  The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. , 1996 .

[29]  R. G. Clapp,et al.  Adaptors and Innovators in Large Organizations: Does Cognitive Style Characterize Actual Behavior of Employees at Work? An Exploratory Study , 1989 .

[30]  Mary Sumner,et al.  A comparative study of computer conferencing and face-to-face communications in systems design , 2000, SIGCPR '00.

[31]  Rob Oyung,et al.  Working Virtually: Challenges of Virtual Teams , 2005 .

[32]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[33]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  The VideoWindow system in informal communication , 1990, CSCW '90.

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

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

[36]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[37]  Hayward P. Andres.  A comparison of face‐to‐face and virtual software development teams , 2002 .

[38]  M. Patton.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[39]  Abbe Mowshowitz,et al.  Virtual organization , 1997, CACM.

[40]  Gordon R. Foxall,et al.  Adaptors and Innovators in Organizations: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Cognitive Styles of Managerial Functions and Subfunctions , 1989 .

[41]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[42]  Robert B. Welch,et al.  How Can We Determine if the Sense of Presence Affects Task Performance? , 1999, Presence.

[43]  George P. Huber,et al.  A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence , 1990 .

[44]  M. Kirton.  Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. , 1976 .

[45]  J. Rotter.  Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. , 1980 .

[46]  A. Adam.  Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[47]  D. Rutter,et al.  The role of visual communication in synchronising conversation , 1977 .

[48]  A. Joinson.  Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity , 2001 .

[49]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Things to Talk About When Talking About Things , 2003, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[50]  Henryk Sienkiewicz,et al.  Quo Vadis? , 1967, American Association of Industrial Nurses journal.

[51]  R. Spears,et al.  Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. , 1992 .

[52]  Erich B. Bergiel,et al.  Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their advantages and disadvantages , 2008 .

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

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

[55]  Onne Janssen,et al.  Voicing by Adapting and Innovating Employees: An Empirical Study on How Personality and Environment Interact to Affect Voice Behavior , 1998 .

[56]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[57]  H. Boeije.  A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews , 2002 .

[58]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[59]  Walter R. Borg,et al.  Educational research: An introduction, 6th ed. , 1996 .

[60]  Chester H. McCall,et al.  The Application of Interrater Reliability as a Solidification Instrument in a Phenomenological Study , 2005 .

[61]  K. B. Akhilesh,et al.  Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance? , 2002 .

[62]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

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

[64]  V. Venkatesh,et al.  TELECOMMUTING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATIONS: A WITHIN‐ AND BETWEEN‐SUBJECTS LONGITUDINAL FIELD STUDY , 2002 .

[65]  J. Rotter.  A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. , 1967, Journal of personality.

[66]  M. Kirton,et al.  Adaptors and Innovators in Organizations , 1980 .

[67]  M. Deutsch.  Trust and suspicion , 1958 .

[68]  Linda G. Olson,et al.  Virtual team trust: task, communication and sequence , 2012 .

[69]  Alphonse Chapanis,et al.  Interactive human communication , 1975 .

[70]  Jan Maarten Schraagen,et al.  On the passage of time: Temporal differences in video-mediated and face-to-face interaction , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[71]  George Hayward,et al.  Adaptors and innovators: Data from the Kirton Adaptor‐Innovator Inventory in a local authority setting , 1983 .

[72]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[73]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information technology for negotiating groups: generating options for mutual gain , 1991 .

[74]  Joel Olson,et al.  The Value Of Webcams For Virtual Teams , 2012, BIOINFORMATICS 2012.

[75]  Paul J. Hart,et al.  Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of Electronic Data Interchange , 1997 .

[76]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Group judgment processes and outcomes in video-conferencing versus face-to-face groups , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[77]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[78]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions , 1982, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[79]  Susan Albers Mohrman,et al.  Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work , 1995 .

[80]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[81]  Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema,et al.  A Framework to Analyze Knowledge Work in Distributed Teams , 2011 .

[82]  Lothar Mühlbach,et al.  Telepresence in Videocommunications: A Study on Stereoscopy and Individual Eye Contact , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[83]  Mohsen Attaran,et al.  Collaborative computing technology: the hot new managing tool , 2013 .

[84]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[85]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effectsof Interorganizational and Interpersonaltrust on Performance , 1998 .