PROBLEM STATEMENT

MULTI NATIONAL COMPANY* has grown dramatically over the last several years
as the result of numerous acquisitions. One of the nation’s largest food
distributors, MULTI NATIONAL COMPANY may have more than 20 operating
companies located throughout the world. To maximize long-term performance,
MULTI NATIONAL COMPANY executives wanted to tap into the knowledge and
expertise of employees located throughout the newly expanded company. In
particular, executives wanted to encourage the sharing of best practices across
operating companies, streamline work processes, prepare managers for
promotion, and develop a unified culture. To address these issues intelligently,
quickly, and effectively, MULTI NATIONAL COMPANY created virtual project
teams.

Virtual project teams represent a recent response to the demand for high-
quality, rapid solutions to complex issues such as those faced by MULTI
NATIONAL COMPANY. Virtual project teams include individuals who are
geographically dispersed and interact primarily through telecommunications and
information technologies to accomplish specific objectives within specified
timeframes. Assignments for these teams might include designing new products,
developing strategies, and revising operating procedures. Virtual project teams
allow organizations to pool the talents and expertise of employees regardless of
employee location, overcoming time and distance barriers to accomplish critical
tasks quickly and effectively.

But simply establishing virtual project teams does not guarantee success. In fact,
virtual teams are often less effective than face-to-face teams on many outcome
measures.2 Virtual project teams can experience difficulties at every stage of
their development. Improved understanding of how virtual project teams develop
and mature will provide managers with important insights that might increase a
team’s contributions to firm performance.

The preliminary observation of virtual project teams at MULTI NATIONAL

COMPANY from inception through project delivery allows to assess how teams
developed and to determine what factors contributed to performance at each
stage of the project-team life cycle.

Preliminary survey and informal interviews with different team members

throughout virtual project team development clarifies the challenges
encountered at various points in team life cycles, and suggestions for
overcoming these challenges. There are implications for organizations planning
to adopt or currently using virtual project teams and recommendations for
coaching virtual teams at each stage of their life cycle.
INTRODUCTION

The life cycle of global software development pass through fixed six phases
which are planning, designing, coding, testing and improvement. These phases
are executed by teamwork of software engineers who cooperate virtually to
produce system. However, as global or organizational software development is
initiated to serve utility to realize total quality management and aid into business
process reengineering, business rule approach is selected to design system in
each phase of software life cycle.

The software development team work involves end-users, business managers

and software engineers who share to develop appropriate system to
organization. Not all team members are motivated to develop system and all
members are solicited upon skills and desire, virtual team’s norming is best tool
to produce such a project however it misses frequent face to face meetings. This
concept may increase conflicts and mistrust between team members and so
decay realization of desired product quality.

This research attempts to study the effects of virtual team factors on product
quality, organization management and employees empowerment. Also, it tries to
answer question, if virtual team mechanism is maintained and configured will the
outcomes (product quality, organization management system and employee
empowerment) change? And how much is the effect? What are the key indicators
of virtual team success?

However, virtual teams internationally approve their self-managing, self-

accountability, and self-dependency, avoidance of frustration and low-value
processes induced by extra meetings especially within software projects.

The results of research can be generalized to cover processes concern multi-

national companies and to serve dealing with customer satisfaction so,
outsourcing people can into planning, designing, and testing acceptance of such
software development through its life cycle.

A virtual team is task and people driven. Its mission is to produce a nuclear of a
management information system (MIS) within organization. The vision is the
ability to access data upon restrictive security constraints according organization
managerial structure. The implementation depends on existing communication
infrastructure and Local Area Network establishment. The required resources are
clients and servers computer distributed within significant locations, licensed
operating systems and relational database management systems and
programming language in use. The principal characteristic of code is easiness of
navigation between graphical interface and methods to access data.

These technical declarations need widespread investigation involving all

organization member or employees in touch with system. It requires support of
top management to resolve conflicts and produce appropriate decision to realize
appropriate results. Such implications and challenges may have greater effects
with internal IT developers rather than external IT developers.

This research will test all these probabilities through applying literature concepts
of cross-functional teams and its evolution to virtual team building, reasons and
objectives. The research depends on the best methods and approaches of
developing software and approved treatment to maintain smooth and secure
data workflow. The wide spread groupware software tools allow software
engineers to share their codes virtually and to add features and detect roles with
low conflict probability. They may own same self-confidentiality levels and same
motivation to realize purpose of team working. The software engineer members
(leaders and teammates) may own trust, complementary and required skills to
achieve work. They are frequently recruited carefully according to task
description. However, users and internal customers (business concern people)
are involved in team structure and not own the same level of satisfaction and
motivation to produce same results.

The virtual teams allow concurrent task and role delegation. The project
activities are not personalized but systematic and continual whenever leader is
changed until general target is realized. Therefore, in next section we will
introduce previous activities of practical and academic researches that apply and
depend on virtual team.

Literature review

(Academy of Management Executive, 2004, Vol. 18, No. 2, “Managing the life
cycle of virtual teams
Stacie A. Fust, Martha Reeves, Benson Rosen, and Richard S. Blackburn,
Executive Overview section”)
In the fast-paced, technology-driven 21st century, virtual project teams
represent a growing response to the need for high-quality, low-cost, rapid
solutions to complex organizational problems. Virtual project teams enable
organizations to pool the talents and expertise of employees (and non-
employees) by eliminating time and space barriers. Yet, there is growing
evidence that virtual teams fail more often than they succeed.
To understand the factors that contribute to virtual team effectiveness, we
tracked six virtual project teams from a large food distribution company from
inception to project delivery. We identified factors at each stage of the virtual-
team life cycle that affected team performance. These results provide specific
examples of what managers can do, at various points in time, to increase a
virtual team’s chances to fully develop and contribute to firm performance.
The Emergence of Virtual Teams
Globalization and technological advancements have led to an increase in virtual
team use over the last decade. Estimates suggest that in the US alone, as many
as 8.4 million employees are members of one or more virtual teams or groups.3
Numerous studies of virtual teams document how they operate and how they
compare to traditional, face-to-face teams. For example, The Executive has
published several articles discussing the birth of virtual teams as an alternative
work form, the advantages and disadvantages of virtual work, and the specific
challenges confronting virtual teams

(Virtual Teams ©2002 Barbara Geisler, edited 5/13/02 ,Introduction )

While teams are not a new phenomenon, they currently are a popular way for
organizations to provide a structure that places power in the hands of employees
as well as management. Many contemporary organizations have created team-
based work structures that are significantly different than the hierarchical and
control-based organizations of the industrial era. However, advances in
communication technologies have dramatically changed the nature of teamwork.
Traditional collocated groups are being replaced with virtual teams, distributed
across boundaries of time, space and organizational structures.

The Industrial Age was characterized by hierarchical organizations that relied on

management direction and organizational departmentalization to provide order
and consistency. Rules and auditing processes were important means of control.
Employees’ roles and responsibilities tended to be specialized and information
typically went to management rather than to employees. Hard work was
encouraged more than a balance between work and home life. Conservative
improvements tended to be the norm because organizational controls typically
inhibited risk taking (Fisher and Fisher, 1998).

Unlike rational organizational structures of the past, teams rely on employee

empowerment rather than management control and direction. Team
organizations have created work structures that are more democratic and
flexible with a common mission of sharing responsibility for results and decisions
between management and workers. The ideal team is characterized by a global
rather than departmental focus. Problems are controlled at the source rather
than by a separate policy function. Information tends to go to employees and
there is more of an emphasis on work and home life balance as opposed to long
hours. Continuous improvement is highly valued. Instead of promoting
employees with highly specialized skills, team-based operations focus on
creating flexible, cross-trained and multi-skilled team members. Self-managing
teams are said to be the key to leaner and more flexible organizations capable of
adjusting rapidly to changes in the environment and technology (Fisher and
Fisher, 1998).

Virtual teams are the next logical step in the evolution of organizational
structures (Lipnack and Stamps, 1999). Presently, people work across internal
organizational boundaries such as specialized functions and departments as well
as external organizational boundaries such as alliances with vendors, industry
associations and even competitors. Virtual teams explore a new type of
boundary-crossing organization utilizing technology and information.

Like other types of organizations that must acclimate to changes in their

environment, higher education institutions are expected to adapt teaching and
facilitation techniques that encompass new and emerging delivery systems.
Education programs have already begun to embrace technology with the
innovation of distance education. Virtual teams may introduce the next step in
advancing the effective facilitation of collaborative team learning. This paper will
focus on the emergence of virtual teams in organizational structures and explore
the benefits and limitations of their incorporation into distance education.

Defining Virtual Teams

In order to understand the concept of a virtual team, it is critical to define what
constitutes a team and what makes it virtual. The use of the word virtual, as in
the virtual team, the virtual organization or the virtual classroom is meant to
denote the meaning of the use of electronics in enabling the flow of information
for specific reasons. The success in creating a virtual world depends on how
clearly the objectives have been defined and to what extent the process
necessary for the accomplishment of the objective has been designed (Norton
and Smith, 1997).

In organizations today, the word team can be used in seemingly incompatible

ways. While it is sometimes used to describe a participative workplace where
everyone has involvement, it can also be used to reinforce the traditional
autocratic
paradigm of being a “team player”. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) define the
word team as meaning a collection of individuals who a share a clear and
common purpose. Being believed to have a common purpose is what
differentiates a team from a group, which is simply a collection of people.
Therefore, organizations that lack a common aspiration cannot by definition be
considered a team.

Fisher and Fisher (1998) further assert that having a clear purpose and common
agreement to achieve that purpose in and of itself does not distinguish classic
bureaucracies from what are currently called team-based operations. They
define teams as nonauthoritarian organizational structures commonly used for
shared responsibility and employee empowerment. They propose that team
operations be based on employee commitment rather than management control.
Unlike groups, teams hold themselves accountable for the outcome.
With the advent of so many communication technologies, organizations are
seizing the opportunities to “work together apart”. Like traditional types of
teams, virtual teams engage a group of individuals to work independently
towards a common goal. Unlike conventional teams, a virtual team works across
time, space and organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of
communication technologies (Lipnack and Stamps, 1997).

In addition to their cross-boundary approach, virtual teams also offer a new way
of managing knowledge. Outsourcing, downsizing and programs of planned
redundancy all mean a reduction in existing staffing level . As attrition in
organizations occurs, a valuable stock of corporate knowledge leaves along with
the employees, including how work is done in practice and how it is done in a
particular domain. (Kimble, Li & Barlow, 2000). There is now an urgent need for
new ways of thinking about how knowledge is shared within organizations
(Kimble, Li & Barlow, 2000).

Principles of Virtual Teams and Systems Theory

In their application of systems theory to virtual teams, Lipnack and Stamps
(1997) assert that the principles of people, purpose and links form a simple
systems model of inputs, processes and produced outputs. People make up the
virtual teams, purpose is the task that holds teams together and links are the
interactions and channels that weave the fabric of the team. The nature and
variety of these links are the most distinguishing factor between virtual and
traditional teams. Figure 1 displays the principles that provide an integrated
framework for understanding and working in virtual teams.
The inputs needed to develop virtual teams include independent members,
cooperative goals, and multiple media (Lipnack and Stamps, 1997). Throughout
the development process, the members share leadership and engage in
interdependent tasks, which involve boundary-crossing interactions. The
generated outputs include integrated levels of organizations, concrete results
and trusting relationships.

figure 1: Virtual Team System of Principles

Produced
Inputs Processes
Outputs

Independe
Peopl Shared Integrated
nt
e Leadership Levels
Members

Cooperativ Interdepende
Purpo
e nt Concrete
se
Goals Tasks Results

Trusting
Multiple Boundary-
Links Relationshi
media crossing
ps
interactions

(From Virtual Teams, Lipnack and Stamps, 1997). .

Virtual teams are composed of individual members with certain areas of
expertise. Because of this diversity, members typically share leadership by
assuming leadership positions at some point in the process. And because teams
are also embedded in organizations, they themselves are parts of larger
systems. Therefore, they must integrate both the level of the members and the
level of the group.

Three elements of virtual teams allow them to achieve their purpose:

cooperative goals, interdependent tasks and concrete results. Virtual teams rely
upon a clear purpose because of their cross-boundary work. Cooperative goals
define the outputs desired, while interdependent tasks connect those desired
outcomes to those achieved. When a team has completed its process, it
expresses its purpose as concrete results.

Links are what give virtual teams their distinction from in-the-same-place
organizations. Multiple media (wires, phones, computers, etc.) are the channels
by which the members make the physical connection. These connections allow
communication and boundary-crossing interaction that make virtual teams truly
different. Through interactions, people develop trusting relationships in their
patterns of behavior that persist and feed back into subsequent interactions.
While it can be argued that trusting relationships are needed by all teams, they
are even more important to virtual teams because of a lack of face-to-face time.
This trust may even have to replace hierarchical structures and bureaucratic
controls (Lipnack and Stamps, 1997).

The Virtuous Loop: Teams & The Cybernetic Model

Cybernetics focuses on the ability of an organization (or team) to engage in self-

regulating behavior by a process of negative feedback (Morgan, 1996). By
avoiding negative outcomes, or deviations from standard norms, the
organization stays on track. The simple cybernetic model, functioning like a
thermostat, demonstrates the ability to monitor the environment, as well as the
capacity to detect and correct deviations from set guidelines. Modern
cybernetics draws the distinction of the ability to question the appropriateness of
those predetermined norms before initiating corrective action. Morgan (1997)
distinguishes this as the difference between “single loop” and double loop
learning (Figure 2).

The virtual feedback loop begins with the assumption of a rational model of
organization consisting of building blocks of collocated groups stacked in
command and control pyramids. Teams work “shoulder to shoulder” and pass
their work to the next team in chains of larger processes, similar to a bucket
brigade. However, competitive pressures from the environment to cut costs and
improve quality are challenging this design. As a consequence, people working
on interdependent tasks are no longer necessarily proximate in the space and
time or even in the same organization. This leads to problems pertaining to
distance, time and hierarchical structures.
 Figure 2: Double Loop Learning

Step 1 = The process of sensing, scanning, and monitoring the environment

Step 2 = The comparison of this information against other operating norms

Step 2a = The process of questioning whether operating norms are appropriate

Step 3 = The process of initiating appropriate action.

(From Images of Organizations, Morgan, 1996).

Virtual teams address the issue of distance and time by replacing collocation
with a combination of technology and face-to-face meetings. They deal with
issues pertaining to hierarchical structures through cross-boundary work. This
facilitates double loop learning by creating ways for people to communicate
interactively.

Barriers to Virtual Teams

Trust and identity are two significant issues for efficient creation and operation of
virtual teams. Identity plays a critical role in communication and yet, when
spatial borders separate team members, identity is ambiguous. Basic indicators
of personality traits and social roles are harder to identify. Unlike the physical
world that consists of matter, the virtual world is composed of information that is
diffused over time and space. There is no law of the conservation of information.
Along with identity, trust is also a crucial component of cooperative endeavors.
Without trust, the management of a virtual organization cannot be conceived
(Kimble, Li & Barlow, 2000).

In addition to trust and identity, there are a number of technological problems

that present barriers to success. Virtual teams require multimedia
communications incorporating voice, data, text and video. This infrastructure is
not always available in certain areas or is often cost-prohibitive to the
organization. Even after the difficult selection of appropriate technologies and
services has been made, the additional cost in maintaining the system need also
be considered. Also, most equipment and software available today has been
designed for use in a conventional office, and may not always be adaptable to a
virtual environment.

Finally, organizational and cultural barriers are another serious impediment to

the effectiveness of virtual teams. Many managers are uncomfortable with the
concept of a virtual team because successful management of virtual teams may
require new methods of supervision (Jarvenpaa and Leinder 1998). Managing the
logistics of communication alone can prevent organizations from developing a
common ground. Additionally, managers may not be able to rely on frequent
visual contact with employees to ensure that work is being done.

Distance Learning and Virtual Teams

College institutions in the United States were built in a different era than we are
currently facing. Cyrs (1997) asserts that our educational institution reflects
industrial-era roots that are organized around centralized structures (similar to
the factory model) by aggregating the workers (faculty and students) at a
particular place (the campus) at a particular time (the academic calendar). Just
as the American economy has changed, it has been argued that structures of
education will need to shift away from an industrial model to one which is more
decentralized, information-based, technology-driven and niche oriented (Cyrs,
1997). The traditional model, which aggregates human resources at a single
location, at a specific time, to serve a large population of students, now has a
major competitor.

There have been several pressures on higher education to enter into a more
technological age. The impetus to transition higher education from an industrial
to an information paradigm derives from a number of technological, economic,
demographic political and pedagogical trends. Providing distance learning
resources to match the needs of nontraditional students has created difficulties
for increasing numbers of higher education institutions.
Like the industrial model, the process of developing materials for learning and
teaching at a distance were molded by the principles of rationalization including
a division of labor, specialization and automation. Peters (1994) defines distance
learning as a rational method “ of providing knowledge which, as a result of
applying the principles of industrial organization as well as the extensive use of
technology, thus facilitating the reproduction of objective teaching activity in any
numbers, allows a large number of students to participate in university study
simultaneously regardless of their of residence and occupation” (Peters, 1994,
p.125).

As more and more programs are migrating towards distance learning, educators
are being forced to evaluate traditional teaching methods. Team-based learning,
which has been proven effective in organizational structures, may become an
increasingly viable option for the future of higher education. Delivering effective,
pedagogically-sound educational programs on-line is of great interest for many
learning communities, provided that technology can be maximized and limits be
minimized by the organizational structure.
Virtual Teams Vs. Traditional Models

The greatest difference between traditional and virtual methods of teaching is

the type and extent of interaction. In traditional classrooms, there is a potential
for a high amount of interaction between the student and the instructor as well
as the other students. However, if a lecture format is strictly utilized, this
interaction will never occur. In virtual classrooms, the technology supports
collaborative learning, heterogeneous groupings, problem solving and higher
order thinking skills not always found in a lecture format.

Not only are there significant differences between face-to-face and on-line
instruction, but the organizational structure is varied as well. Traditional
education is dependent on the instructor’s defined task, time frame and
resources, whereas in most on-line programs, delivery of instruction is
dependent on the team’s collective effort in meeting the task with team-
dependent time frames and resources.

Dynamics of Virtual Team Learning

The greatest value of team learning may also be its greatest challenge (Bailey &
Luetkehans, 1998). Because virtual learning teams, like face-to-face teams, are
governed by the group dynamics, they offer a diversity of talents, strength and
experiences. While this sometimes generates discussion, creativity and problem
solving, it also brings to the surface differences in learning styles, roles and
habits. According to Bailey and Luetkehans (1998), all teams develop and
enforce group norms for acceptable and unacceptable behavior as well as
designate preferred team member’s roles.
Bailey and Luetkehans (1998) also cite that most of the literature agrees that
effective teams are able to represent a balance between task roles (goal
accomplishment) and maintenance roles (process satisfaction and efficiency).
However, these roles are much more difficult to manage in an on-line
environment. An instructor who is solely concerned with content learning may
also overlook these interactions. Taking more of a systems view of team
interactions may help avoid these types of “internet pitfalls” (Boettcher, 1997).

Limitations of Virtual Teams Technologies

As in other organizations, no change will take place it higher education without

some opposition. Implementing educational programs utilizing virtual teams is
forecasted to be both difficult to understand and threatening to college
personnel. Shifting from traditional pedagogy and adopting a team perspective
may become political by putting pressure on some to “go along with the flow”
and begin to employ technologies without any knowledge of their teaching or
learning potential.

External pressures to provide quantifiable evidence of quality in undergraduate

education have left institutions pondering ways to “measure the
unmeasureable”. These pressures have created a shift in measuring quality in
terms of inputs such as SAT scores of successful applicants, the number of
faculty with doctorates or the extent of library holdings to assessing outcomes
such as graduation and employment rates. The answer to whether or not
technology will improve productivity and outcomes will depend on how it is
applied. It can be effective if implemented as part of a strategic plan as opposed
to simply being “strapped on” to existing technologies (Van Dusen, 1997).

Van Dusen (1997) also warns against the “because it’s there” mentality when
acquiring new electronic technologies just for the sake of keeping up with
competitors. Instead he posits that an institution should approach the virtual
campus concept with the attitude that new technologies are merely tools that
can be used to help college institutions effectively reach their institutional
mission.

The key may be to recognize the incremental nature of change. Gilbert (1996)
states “no form of distance education or any other widely applicable educational
use of information technology has yet proved so much more effective than
‘traditional’ forms of learning and teaching as to become a complete
replacement for them” (p.12). It is argued that a wide range of classroom
activities from lecture to virtual team experiments will continue to serve the
needs of most students.

Some colleges are experimenting with “hybrid” or blended models of teaching

that replace some in-person meetings with virtual sessions (Young, 2002). A
movement towards hybrid courses marks a shift in vision for online education.
Originally designed for students who could not otherwise attend class on
campus, institutions are now finding that students are choosing these hybrid
classes due to their convenience. And although some faculty fear from moving
away from any type of traditional education, the hybrid models have been met
with less resistance by faculty.

Conclusions

The bureaucratic and hierarchal structure of most organizations today was

developed in an industrial era where people had to be in the same place to work
together. The technology of today’s organizations permits the refiguring of our
organizational structures in order to meet the rapidly changing demands of the
business environment. Virtual teams and networks of teams offer new solutions
to organization problems (Lipnack and Stamps, 1999). The network, rather than
the pyramid, becomes the conceptual model for how people work together to
accomplish the goals of an organization (Lipnack and Stamps, 1999).

The virtual team refers to a group of geographically dispersed workers within the
organization’s structure that are brought together to accomplish a specific task
using telecommunications and information technologies. Organizations have
benefited from this emerging form of structure and its distributed knowledge,
and they are starting to make an impact on higher education.

Systemic reform has brought about a number of changes to postsecondary

education, none more significant than what students learn and how they learn it.
Like other organizations, college institutions can serve a more heterogeneous
and diverse population of students by removing constraints of time and distance,
and utilizing the concept of virtual teams. By incorporating virtual teams, higher
education institutions will not only cross the boundaries of their own
organizational structures, but also better prepare its students for the changing
face of the corporate world. Hybrid models may offer the best of both worlds,
offering the convenience of online programs without complete loss of face-to-
face contact. These models are often viewed as less controversial than full-blown
virtual programs.

Higher education has been viewed as a curator, creator and critic of the basic
knowledge of our worlds (Van Dusen, 1997). The development of new technology
has affected this transfer of knowledge. It can be argued that the traditional
methods of higher education can either embrace this new virtual world or
become less relevant in the value it adds to society. How effectively institutions
link the tools of technology with their educational vision and mission will
determine their continued success in being a primary source of education in that
society.

Virtual teams afford many advantages to organizations, including increased

knowledge sharing and employee job satisfaction and commitment, as well as
improved organizational performance.5 However, virtual teams can also face a
number of unique challenges that often prevent them from obtaining successful
outcomes. Broadly, these challenges include (1) logistical problems, such as
communicating and coordinating work across time and space, (2) interpersonal
concerns, such as establishing effective working relationships with team
members in the absence of frequent face-toface communication, and (3)
technology issues, such as identifying, learning, and using technologies most
appropriate for certain tasks.
There is an abundance of advice to managers on how to motivate virtual teams
to high levels of performance. Some authors encourage managers to help virtual
teams draft mission statements, set goals, and coordinate their work. Others
emphasize the importance of teambuilding exercises to create a team identity
and strengthen interpersonal relationships. Much of this advice is based on
single observations or laboratory studies with student virtual teams. Our goal is
to understand how virtual teams of real employees develop through every phase
of a team life cycle from team formation through product delivery. Our focus is
on helping managers understand the special challenges that virtual project
teams confront at each stage of development and how to time intervention
strategies so that teams can make smooth transitions.

The Life Cycle of Virtual Project Teams

Teams are more effective when members can combine their individual talents,
skills, and experiences via appropriate working relationships and processes. 7 Two
models that describe how teams evolve through this process have been
proposed by Tuckman (1965) and Gersick (1988).8

Tuckman’s Stage Model of Development

Based on an extensive analysis of groups located in one place, Tuckman
identified four distinct stages of team development: forming, storming, norming,
and performing. During the forming stage, team members share information
about themselves and their task explicitly through discussions or implicitly
through non-verbal cues, such as status symbols or physical traits. Ideally, team
members also establish trust, clarify group goals, and develop shared
expectations in this stage. Efforts to resolve these issues often surface
differences of opinions, and in the storming stage, conflicts emerge as team
members work to identify appropriate roles and responsibilities. Groups able to
resolve conflicts move to the norming stage. In this stage, teams recognize and
agree on ways of working together, strengthen relationships, and solidify
understanding of member obligations, all of which increase levels of trust, mis-
sion clarity, and coordination. Finally, teams reach the performing stage during
which team members work toward project completion, actively helping and
encouraging each other.

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model

Gersick examined the impact of deadline pressures on the development
processes of work teams. She described a “punctuated equilibrium” model of de-
velopment in which a team’s evolution is marked by two periods of stability—
Phase I and Phase II—punctuated by abrupt changes at the project midpoint that
occurs halfway to the deadline.9 Phase I begins with the first team meeting and
continues until the team is halfway to a project’s deadline. During Phase I, teams
try to establish a working agenda and to develop norms that guide early project
efforts. These activities parallel Tuckman’s forming, storming, and norming
stages. At the project midpoint, a transition occurs as teams assess the norms
and assumptions set during Phase 1. Teams dissatisfied with their progress may
seek advice from an outside leader or facilitator in order to develop more
effective norms. Teams satisfied with their performance maintain the status quo.
With a successful transition, team members focus on their performance for the
duration of the project (Phase II). This transition is usually followed by a burst of
activity to insure that the team meets the deadline with an acceptable outcome.
Some evidence shows that virtual teams evolve through processes similar to
those described by Tuckman and Gersick, although differences in the speed and
pattern of development appear to exist.10 These findings provide some clues that
the evolution of virtual project teams may be more complex and challenging
than for co-located teams. For instance, reliance on electronic communication
may slow the establishment of trust, limit conflict resolution, promote free riding,
and inhibit team synergy and performance. Similarly, it may be more difficult for
virtual project teams to (re)assess their progress, reflect on collective work eth-
ics, and recommit to task completion within designated time frames, as
described by the punctuated equilibrium model. These issues, which we detail in
the next section, are summarized in Table 1.

The Challenges Associated with Virtual Team Development

Forming
In co-located teams, face-to-face interactions during the early stages of
a project provide opportunities for building relationships based on
common interests and permit individuals to analyze their colleagues’
trustworthiness based on observation and conversation. Developing
high-quality relationships is more difficult and takes longer when team
members are geographically dispersed because reliance on electronic
communications often diminishes communication frequency.11
Proximity enables team members to engage in informal work and non-
work related conversations that can occur over coffee, at the water
cooler, or during lunch.12 More frequent interaction increases
opportunities to break the ice, establish lines of communication, and
identify points of similarity, all of which are critical for successful team
formation.
Reliance on electronic communications also increases the potential for
faulty first impressions and erroneous stereotypes.13 In the absence of
visual or audio cues provided by some technologies, team members
may develop incorrect stereotypes based on geographic and cultural
differences, or differences in functional expertise. These mistaken
stereotypes or presumed differences between team members can
undermine relationship-building efforts.14 In particular, teams may
struggle to form a collective identity that promotes a shared
commitment to a common goal.15
Successful navigation through the forming stage requires that team
members establish a sense of trust.16 In face-to-face teams, trust
develops based on social and emotional attachments. In virtual teams,
trust develops based on more identifiable actions as timely information
sharing, appropriate responses to electronic communications, and
keeping commitments to virtual teammates.17 These actions signal
that team members are competent and
 Table
Stages of Virtual Project Team Development

Storming

As table 1 notes, past research on co-located teams suggests that disagreement

and conflict characterize the storming stage of team development. In the virtual
environment, the use of communication technologies may prolong these
conflicts. Without the benefit of the subtle social cues associated with face-to-
face communications (body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions),
misunderstandings can occur more readily.18 Electronic communication can
exacerbate conflict when team members simply refuse to respond to electronic
messages. This explains why virtual teams, particularly those working on
complex, non-technical issues, take longer to reach consensus on team process
issues than do co-located teams.19

The presumed diversity of work settings can also inhibit conflict resolution for
virtual teams. For example, in some work settings, technology and support staff
are available to support virtual teams. In less advanced settings, even minor
technical problems can be disruptive for teams and team members. Similarly, in
some settings, managers or team members may view virtual team participation
as a high priority, while others may view it as a distraction from more immediate
concerns. Team members in different work settings can form different
expectations regarding how to coordinate work and accomplish team
objectives.20
 In the storming stage, virtual project team sponsors can appoint team leaders
to help minimize conflicts that can occur over role assignments. When leadership
selection is based on the skills critical for virtual team success, including conflict
management, virtual teams are more likely to survive the storming stage.21
However, self-managed virtual project teams are created without a formal
leader, and other teams are formed with a misplaced emphasis on a leader’s
technical as opposed to interpersonal skills. In such cases, the emergence of an
informal or social leader may be an agonizingly slow process. And, if virtual
teams are low in trust, the absence of an emergent or formal leader can have
serious consequences for later team performance.22

Norming
Table 1 shows that in the norming stage of development, virtual teams work to
strengthen relationships, solidify norms around team processes, and reach
consensus regarding obligations, timetables, and deadlines. These efforts mirror
the activities that teams may engage in at Gersick’s “midpoint transition.” At this
point, teams assess whether their work processes have been effective or if they
need to be revised. Special challenges confronting virtual teams in the norming
stage include coordinating work, developing a shared understanding around
modes of communication, and the speed and frequency of responding.
Virtual teams must establish norms governing both work processes and
communication content. Agreements on timetables and individual areas of
responsibility are essential for virtual team effectiveness.23 Structured schedules
and timelines enable virtual team members to coordinate work across time
zones and to manage variations in team members’“local” work schedules and
demands. Working virtually also requires keeping all members informed.
Unfortunately, some members may initially lack the discipline to follow virtual
team agreements with respect to information sharing. For example, phone calls
and emails between a subset of team members may feel comfortable and
appear efficient but could prove to be self-defeating when other members are
deprived of critical information or made to feel like second-class team
members.24 Creating new habits around the use of shareware and other
technology platforms which allow members to archive documents and use
message boards are among the challenges facing virtual teams during the
norming stage.
Norms must also address the quality and candidness of communication. In any
team, members may be reluctant to share creative but potentially divisive ideas
with their teammates. In the virtual context, it is not easy to test the waters,
gauge potential reactions, and/or modify ideas based on the subtle feedback
often available in co-located teams. Virtual team members may also withhold
message postings critical of teammate suggestions to spare others from
embarrassment. Thus, norms that require complete information sharing have the
paradoxical effect of making virtual team members more cautious when it comes
to publicly sharing untested ideas or offering criticisms of others.25 Clearly,
establishing trust in earlier stages of team development is a necessary condition
for solidifying these kinds of norms at this stage. ~
 Table 2
Project Team Assignments

Tea Name Project Objective

m
To develop an integration
1 ACQUIRE strategy
for acquisitions
2 ITECH To determine how to efficiently
transfer information technology
from one subsidiary company to
other parts of the firm
3 TRANSFER To determine how to transfer
best
practices from one division of the
company to another
4 AP To streamline the accounts
payable
Process
5 COMM To conduct a corporate
communications audit
To develop career paths for
6 CAREER
specific
Jobs
Table 3
Managerial Interventions During the Virtual Project Team Life Cycle

Formation Storming Norming Performing

● Realistic virtual ● ● Create ●Ensure
project team customized departmental and
● previews ● ● templates or team company culture
Coaching from charters supports virtual
● experienced team ● Face-to-face ● specifying task team work
members Develop team building requirements Set ●Provide sponsor
● a shared ● sessions Training ● individual support and
understanding on conflict accountabilities, resources for team
and sense of resolution completion dates, to perform
team identity Encourage and schedules
Develop a clear conflicting Establish
mission employees to procedures for
work together to information
find common sharing
ground Shuttle Distinguish task,
diplomacy and social, and
mediation to contextual
create information;
● Acquire senior compromise ● design procedures
manager support solutions appropriate for
each Assign a
team coach with
skills for
managing
virtually
REFERENCES

[1]Paul Clements, Rick Kazman and Mark Klein, Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and
Case Studies, Addison Wesley, 2002.
[2] “ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation”: ATAM
-Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method report:
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/ata_method.html
[3] Rick Kazman, Len Bass, Gregory Abowd, and Mike Webb, "SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the
Properties Software Architectures," Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, May 1994, pp. 81-90.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/publications.html#reports
[4] “CBAM: Cost Benefit Analysis Method
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/ata/products_services/cbam.html
[5] Lassing, Nico, Ph.D. Thesis, “Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis”, Ph.D. thesis, Free
University Amsterdam, February 2002.
[6] Bengtsson, PerOlof, Ph.D. Thesis, “Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis”, Department of
Software Engineering and Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden 2002.
[7] Thomas J. Dolan, Ph.D. Thesis, “Architecture Assessment of Information-System Families”,
Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, February 2002.
[8] Software Architecture Review and Assessment (SARA) Report Version 1.0 available in
electronic form at: http://www.rational.com/media/products/rup/sara_rep ort.pdf

[9]Abowd, G., Georgia Institute of Technology, Bass, Clements, Kazman, Northrop and Zaremski,
SEI, “Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation” 13Jan,
1997.

=
[10] Stephan Kurpjuweit, Ph.D. Thesis, “A Family of Tools to Integrate Software Architecture
Analysis and Design”, Final Draft Version, to be published 2002.

Appendix
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailey, M. & Luetkehans, L. (1998) Distance Learning ’98. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 14th, Madison, WI, August 5-7, 1998.

Belanger, F. and Jordon. D. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning:

technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Boettcher, J. (1997). Internet pitfalls. Syllabus, November/December, 46-52.

Cascio, W.F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive,
August, 81-90.

Cyrs, T. (1997). Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver
and evaluate programs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Jossey Bass Publishers, Fall,
No. 71.

Fisher, K. and Fisher, M. (1998). The distributed mind. New York: American Management
Association.

Gilbert, S. (1996). Making the most of a slow revolution. Change, 28 (2) 10-23.

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Distance and Campus Universities: Tensions and interactions. New
York: International Association of Universities and Elsevier Science LTD, 1999.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1998) Communication and trust in Global virtual teams,
Journal of Computer Mediated Communications 3,(4) available at
http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Kimble, C., Li, F., and Barlow, A. (2000) Effective virtual teams trough communities of
Practice. Unpublished manuscript, Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde,
Glasglow, Scotland.

Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J.(1997). Virtual teams. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lipnack J. and Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to go. Strategy and Leadership,
Jan/Feb, 14-19. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Norton, B. and Smith, C. (1997). Understanding the virtual organization. Hauppauge, New York:
Peters, O. (1994). Distance education and industrial production: A comparative interpretation in
outline. In: D. Keegan (ed.), Otto Peters on Distance Education, London: Routledge 107-127.

Van Dusen, Gerald C. (1997). The virtual Campus: Technology and reform in Higher Education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No 5. Washington DC: The George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Young, J.R. (2002) ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online
instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, available at
http//.www.chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm.

TO TOP