Dissertation: Exploratory study on how virtual teams create, share and manage knowledge
84
1 Exploratory study on how virtual teams create, share and manage knowledge. ‘Inventing in new knowledge is a way of behaving, indeed, a way of being’ Nonaka, 1991 ‘Teams and knowledge add value, when managed properly’ Griffith, 2003 Monika Gierszewska Postgraduate Student of MSc Business Innovation at Birkbeck College September 2013
Transcript of Dissertation: Exploratory study on how virtual teams create, share and manage knowledge
1
Exploratory study on how virtual teams create, share and manage knowledge.
‘Inventing in new knowledge is a way of behaving, indeed, a way of being’
Nonaka, 1991
‘Teams and knowledge add value, when managed properly’ Griffith, 2003
Monika Gierszewska
Postgraduate Student of MSc Business Innovation at Birkbeck College
September 2013
3
Contents
1. Abstract ............................................................................................................... 6
2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8
3. Literature review ................................................................................................ 10
3.1. What is a virtual team? ................................................................................ 10
3.2. Challenges of knowledge management in virtual teams ............................. 11
3.3. Best Practice for Virtual Working ................................................................. 14
3.4. Importance of knowledge in organisations .................................................. 16
3.5. Knowledge sharing in virtual teams ............................................................. 17
3.6. Knowledge creation in virtual team ............................................................. 19
3.7. Best Practices for Knowledge Creation and Sharing ................................... 21
3.8. How virtual teams manage their knowledge? .............................................. 22
3.9. Knowledge management – tools ................................................................. 23
3.9.1. Intranets ................................................................................................ 23
3.9.2. Knowledge repositories ........................................................................ 25
3.9.3. Social Networking Tools ....................................................................... 26
3.9.4. Other tools ............................................................................................ 26
3.10. Research gaps ......................................................................................... 26
4. Research Framework ........................................................................................ 28
5. Research Results .............................................................................................. 32
5.1. Demographics ............................................................................................. 32
4
5.2. Geographic spread of the team ................................................................... 33
5.3. IT tools used for communication ................................................................. 35
5.3.1. Email..................................................................................................... 35
5.3.2. Phone ................................................................................................... 37
5.3.3. Video Conferencing .............................................................................. 38
5.3.4. Desktop Sharing ................................................................................... 39
5.3.5. File Sharing .......................................................................................... 40
5.3.6. Social Networks .................................................................................... 42
5.3.7. Office communicator ............................................................................. 43
5.3.8. Other IT tools ........................................................................................ 45
5.4. Communication challenges in virtual teams ................................................ 46
5.5. Challenges of Virtual Work .......................................................................... 47
5.6. Virtual project collaboration ......................................................................... 49
5.7. What helps and hinders virtual team performance ...................................... 50
5.8. Learning in virtual teams ............................................................................. 55
5.9. Comparison of virtual and traditional work .................................................. 56
6. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 58
6.1. Advantages and challenges ........................................................................ 58
6.2. Discussion points ........................................................................................ 60
7. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 65
8. Implications for further research ........................................................................ 67
5
9. Summary ........................................................................................................... 68
10. References ..................................................................................................... 70
10.1. References: Enterprise Content Management Systems .......................... 76
11. Appendices ..................................................................................................... 77
11.1. Appendix 1 - Information Sheet................................................................ 77
11.2. Appendix 2 - Interview Questions ............................................................ 80
6
1.Abstract
In response to the fast pace of technological development and the rise of
outsourcing as an outcome of globalisation, organisations have been shifting their
operations from traditional offices to virtual environments. The research of this paper
will explore how virtual teams create new knowledge, how they learn from each
other, and how they communicate and manage what they know. Knowledge creation
and management as the drivers of innovation and growth in organisations are the
focus of the research (Nonaka, 1991).
Great volumes of research have been conducted to address those points. However,
due to rapid technological development, virtual collaboration and communication
have changed significantly over the past few years. This paper examines and
critically assesses existing theories and their application to modern virtual teams. In
order to gather new data, sixteen virtual workers have been interviewed to answer
questions related to research on knowledge creation, sharing and management in
virtual teams.
Although the study is based on a small sample of participants, a number of relevant
conclusions can be drawn from the conducted interviews. First of all, social capital
plays an important role at all stages of virtual team formation. The greater the trust
and shared understanding between team members, the better the communication,
knowledge sharing and overall team performance. Therefore, regular contact
between team members is recommended to build social capital, but it does not
necessitate face-to-face contact. Regular telephone conversations and virtual
meetings are often as effective.
7
Secondly, while creating new knowledge may be more difficult virtually than in
person, it is nonetheless possible. Fully virtual teams have mastered ways of
communicating and collaborating such that they are able to build on each other’s
experiences and ideas. Also, by setting simple communication rules at the beginning
of a project, team members are more likely to share their knowledge. Learning and
sharing knowledge should be actively encouraged in any organisation as they
positively contribute to team effectiveness.
Thirdly, individuals should embrace the technology needed to communicate and
collaborate, and also to capture and manage knowledge. Information that is codified
in writing is much easier to transfer to another person. A peer-to-peer knowledge
repository is a great way to capture knowledge and enable employees to learn from
the documented experiences of others.
Lastly, virtual teams tend to be very diverse, located across a number of different
geographies and times zones; team members often have multinational cultural
backgrounds and speak different languages. These differences should be embraced
as dispersed teams can approach international markets and clients more effectively
thanks to their language skills and locations. What is more, a diverse team can
benefit from different ways of thinking and therefore solve problems more quickly.
To summarise, this paper provides insights into how knowledge is created, shared
and managed in virtual teams. Despite the small sample used, the research findings
are actually quite general and can be applied to improve the effectiveness of any
virtual team.
.
8
2.Introduction
According to a study conducted by Gartner Group, 60% of professionals work on
teams that can be characterised as virtual (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006). What is more,
41% of virtual team workers have never met their colleagues face to face. In the
“Best Companies to Work for” report by Fortune Magazine (Colvin, 2006), 79 of the
top 100 companies reviewed allowed employees to work from home at least 20% of
the time. There is also an increasing number of companies allowing employees to
work remotely, 100% of the time. According to U.S. Census Bureau there was one
million more Americans working from home in 2010 than in 2005. A number of
remote workers in US has reached 4.3% of total workforce (Lee, 2013).
Multinational companies see virtual work as a way of tapping into dispersed
geographical talent at a lower cost and of addressing global markets and clients.
Technology enables us to work anywhere and at any time as long as we have
access to the internet. Virtual working is seen to be on a par with traditional face-to-
face team working. However, there are actually many differences in how virtual and
co-located teams operate.
For the past few decades, we have been living in a “knowledge economy” where
knowledge is seen as the most valuable corporate asset. “Knowledge economy”
phrase has been coined by Fritz Machlup’s in a book ‘The Production and
Distribution of Knowledge in the United States’ (1973). By Machlup’s definition,
knowledge is what produces economic benefits and job creation. In a business
context, knowledge drives innovation, performance, and growth. Therefore,
companies look for ways of ensuring that more knowledge is created and shared,
leading to even greater performance. A significant amount of research presents how
9
knowledge is shared, very often in quite informal circumstances when people meet
face-to-face – during lunch breaks or informal conversations. People can also create
new tacit knowledge by learning from others’ experiences. However, with the virtual
mode of working, such situations are very rare or sometime not at all possible. The
purpose of this research is to explore how knowledge is created, shared and
managed by virtual teams. The research will critically address how virtual teams
create, share, and manage knowledge. Additionally, the paper will examine what IT
tools are being used to aid in knowledge management and for increased efficiency.
The paper will commence with a comprehensive literature review as to how virtual
teams work and how team members share knowledge and create new knowledge,
as well as how such knowledge is managed. The second section will include the
methodology and results of the research. Subsequently, the results will be discussed
and compared to prior sources. Lastly, recommendations will be made for virtual
teams as to how to enhance their effectiveness.
10
3.Literature review
3.1.What is a virtual team?
A large and growing body of literature has investigated virtual teams. Gibson and
Gibbs (2006) explain that there were almost 150 journal articles published between
2000 and 2006 on the topic of virtual teams and each one of them had a slightly
different definition. Very often virtual teams are also described as dispersed,
transnational or multinational. The definition of virtual team used in this paper will
refer to a team that is geographically dispersed with dynamic structures, exhibits
national diversity, and is dependent upon electronic communication. Dispersed team
members may be located in different geographies and time zones which add to their
complexity. Moreover, there are teams that reside in the same geographical area,
but still choose not to co-locate: they prefer to work virtually instead. Virtual workers
who work across multiple teams, especially in large organisations, tend to work from
the office. Those employees tend to spend percentage of their time working with
colleagues in the same location, as well as interacting virtually with their colleagues
located in other countries. This approach is very common in IT outsourcing
companies. However, smaller companies who cannot afford an office or do not feel a
need for having one, allow employees to choose where they want to work: at home,
in a café or in a co-working space. This is not a rule and they may be employees
from large enterprises choosing to work from home for personal reasons, and
smaller firms renting an office space even if it is only for a very small team.
Nevertheless, it needs to be clarified that virtual workers are not always home
workers. The term “virtual” in this paper refers to the means of communication, rather
than location.
11
Virtual teams also have dynamic structures: the membership of the team as well as
individual roles change frequently. Additionally, virtual teams are also dependent on
electronic means of communication rather than face-to-face contact. National
diversity is an important aspect of virtual teams and to analyse its importance this
research paper will only qualify teams who have team members residing in at least
two different countries. As a result, they might speak different languages, and have
different cultural backgrounds and ways of working.
There are a few similarities between virtual and face-to-face teams: a good team has
always had the same shared interests, needs, practices, as well as goals (Baruch &
Lin, 2012). However, the differences are much greater. Traditionally, co-located
teams are often created because of the similarity and proximity of team members, as
well as their prior acquaintance. On the other hand, virtual teams are formed
because of the members’ skills and expertise. Global, multinational companies can
put virtual teams together with ease if they want to access specific expertise, even if
someone is in a distant location (Griffith et al., 2003).
3.2.Challenges of knowledge management in virtual teams
Virtual teams face many challenges. First of all, it is more difficult to build social
capital without face-to-face contact. Social capital is defined by Putnam (1994) in his
popular paper “Bowling Alone (...)” as “features of social organisation such
as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for
mutual benefit.” A considerable amount of literature has determined that social
capital and knowledge sharing and creation are positively correlated.
In other words, trust between team members, shared norms and strong network ties
improve team communication, which helps in sharing knowledge, speeding up work
12
and solving problems faster. Building social networks, both internally and externally,
helps to access resources and information (Chisholm and Nielsen, 2009). Trust
plays a very important role in building social capital as it contributes to deeper
relations and easier knowledge sharing.
On the other hand, lack of social capital in the team may have negative effects on
team performance and knowledge sharing. Employees are less likely to share
information with people they do not consider trustworthy, which in turn can hinder
knowledge creation. Lack of trust also undermines team performance and a lack of
shared norms leads to ineffective communication (Baruch and Lin, 2012).
What is more, virtual team members often struggle to get things done as there is
often no one directly managing them. Furthermore, virtual projects often take longer
to complete due to the interdependence of tasks carried out by team members
located in different time zones. Lastly, having different cultural and national
backgrounds may lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation (Bailey et al.,
2011). Virtual teams do not have opportunities for spontaneous social interaction,
which hinders the development of new ideas, opinions, and knowledge.
Most scientific and technological knowledge can be codified and shared with other
team members. However, experiential and complex knowledge is much more
challenging to externalise and share. Experiential knowledge (learning from
experience) can be absorbed by recreating experience, which is not easily done
virtually. Additionally, complex knowledge can only be transferred if the context is
well understood. It includes knowledge about markets, business practices, or even
cultural assumptions (Doz et al., 2001). As a result of this complexity, transfer of
knowledge in purely virtual form may not always be successful or efficient.
13
Therefore, to ensure the successful transfer of experiential and complex knowledge,
virtual team members might be required to co-locate, at least for a short period of
time.
In other words, researchers argue that the challenges of transferring tacit knowledge
virtually may even slow down the development of new knowledge and hinder
organisational performance and the individual ability of problem solving. However,
Feghali and El-Den (2008) tried to recreate the process of sharing tacit knowledge in
a virtual setting. When people meet face-to-face, they are able to exchange ideas
and opinions in person as well as build on each other’s point of view, thus creating
new knowledge. This process can be mirrored virtually when people are invited to
verbalise their ideas and opinions in an online forum. The communication in an
online forum goes both ways: participants are able to publish their thoughts while
members of the forum can read the posts, reflect upon them, and post their
comments and feedback. This, in turn, creates a feedback loop. The person who
published the original post can interpret responses from the commentators, refine
the idea, and eventually articulate the new knowledge created by incorporating the
feedback from the forum. Feghali and El-Den demonstrate that sharing tacit
knowledge is not impossible, but it does follow a different model of knowledge
sharing than in a physical meeting.
Aside from the challenges and problems of virtual working, the advantages must also
be considered. One of the advantages of virtual teams is the ability to tap into
knowledge, regardless of where it is located. Specialised expertise can be accessed,
even if it is situated on the other side of the world. Moreover, because team
members that are accessed virtually have different backgrounds, cultures and
experiences, the virtual teams understand global operations and clients better.
14
Additionally, virtual teams are forced to share knowledge in a codified form because
they can only share information that is written down. Although such knowledge may
sometimes lack context, it is still easier to transfer than tacit knowledge. Modern
information communication technologies enable dynamic discussion forums, which
are much more adaptable to user needs than static knowledge repositories (Akhgar,
1995). From an organisational point of view, virtual working is very cost-effective as
companies do not need to hire office space and provide a costly operational
infrastructure.
3.3.Best Practice for Virtual Working
Aside from academic sources, the subject of virtual work is very often discussed in
the business publications and online magazines. Best practices suggest they are
very much aligned with academic recommendations. First of all, face-to-face contact
is critical, especially at the beginning of team forming to get to know each other and
learn about each other’s strengths and weaknesses. If face-to-face contact is not
possible, video-conferencing is recommended followed by regular team meetings
either via phone or video (Gibson & Cohen, 2002). Communication is vital and teams
should select IT tools that enable reaching someone quickly to ask a question and
for other types of informal communication. Fortunately, today’s technology allows
modern virtual workers to be accessible 24/7 if they choose via smartphones. Instant
messenger for quick communication and Skype/Google Hangout for free calls and
video conferences are highly recommended (Lohrbeer, 2011).
Additionally, frequent contact and allowing time for informal communication among
individuals or groups helps the team build trust and shared understanding, which is
very important to the success of a virtual team. Team members who trust each other
15
will work harder towards a common goal, share information more willingly, and help
other team members as needed. Trust on a team can be built if the leader takes a
supportive and collaborative approach (as opposed to authoritarian) and members
are aware of each other’s contributions (Bailey, 2013).
Cultural diversity can add a great deal of value to a virtual team, especially for the
long term. Diverse team members will provide different perspectives and ways of
looking at problems. However, very often cultural diversity can cause
misunderstandings instead. This can be prevented by demonstrating each other’s
customs and ways of working; and as a result, better expectations can be set.
Additionally, establishing new ground rules helps the team work better together
(Bailey, 2013).
Technology becomes increasingly intuitive to use. However, some individuals with
lower computer literacy may not find software as easy to use as their more
experienced colleagues. Therefore, prior training would help everyone learn how to
use the communication and collaborative software more effectively (Gibson and
Cohen, 2002).
Lastly, regular face-to-face contact for all team members is not critical; but it is
helpful to build rapport, shared understanding, and trust. If resources allow, a once-
a-year meeting for the entire team is recommended (Lohrbeer, 2013).
In this chapter challenges, advantages as well as best practices of virtual working
have been discussed. The following chapters will assess how in virtual teams
knowledge is shared, created, and managed. However, the research will first present
a few theories explaining why attention should be paid to knowledge in an
organisational context.
16
3.4.Importance of knowledge in organisations
Looking at the historic context, in the industrial era society used to create value from
natural and physical resources, such as textiles, chemicals or steel. Today’s value
resides in intellectual capital and intangible resources. After the industrial and mass-
production economy, the knowledge economy was developed. Knowledge, as an
organisational resource, has replaced physical capital, raw materials, and labour,
and is now considered to be the most important corporate resource (Stewart, 1994).
A number of researchers regard organisational knowledge as the key driver of
competitiveness and (Drucker, 1999) innovation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Therefore, one of the key managerial challenges is to efficiently gather, generate,
disseminate and apply knowledge (Kessels, 2001).
Alaei et al. (2012) have conducted research on the importance of knowledge
management in an organisational context. The research has confirmed that well-
managed knowledge does contribute to driving innovation. When people are able to
share ideas and opinions more easily, new ideas are created. It also helps to
discover who has the thought power and leadership in the organisation. Moreover,
knowledge becomes the capital that helps organisations create new products and
develop new services. Research has confirmed that knowledge creation, sharing and
management contribute to organisational growth and performance. Organisations
should fully support knowledge management, though it is not fully optimised for
working environments such as virtual.
To summarise, it has been established that knowledge is an essential resource in
any company and that by sharing knowledge, firms benefit greatly. The next chapter
17
will consider how knowledge is actually shared on virtual teams and what benefits
can be derived.
3.5.Knowledge sharing in virtual teams
“Knowledge sharing” can be defined as sharing information and experiences
between individuals in an organisation, which increases the resources of that firm
and reduces the time of making decisions (Baruch and Lin, 2012). Knowledge in
virtual teams is mostly shared using online communication technology. In order for
knowledge to be transferred to another person, it has to be codified first in written
form. Once transferred, the receiving person needs to decode it and apply it for their
own purposes (Wang and Haggerty, 2009).
Wang and Haggerty (2009) argue that individuals have different “virtual competence”
which affects their ability to transfer knowledge virtually. Their research has identified
that virtual competence has three different dimensions: virtual self-efficacy, virtual
media skill, and virtual social skills. The first is the ability to accomplish certain tasks
and solve problems in virtual settings. Secondly, virtual media skill is the ability of
using virtual media and virtual communication tools. Lastly, virtual social skill is a
measure of how well an individual can build social relationships virtually. The
research has determined that all three dimensions of virtual competence can be
improved with practice. Individuals who have experience working virtually and have
developed virtual relationships have higher “virtual competence.” The higher the
virtual competence, the greater the effectiveness of knowledge transfer within virtual
teams. Moreover, the result would be an enhanced individual and an improved team
and organisational performance. Apart from discussing the ability to transfer
knowledge, researchers also note that willingness to do so is very important.
18
Motivations behind sharing knowledge are influenced by levels of cooperation and
competition on the team. Sometimes, “coopetition” can be observed as well when
the team works towards a common goal, but the team members compete between
themselves for the best result. It has been confirmed that collaboration is positively
correlated with knowledge sharing, while there is negative correlation between
competition and knowledge sharing, which presents an interesting paradox in some
organisations that insist on creating a competitive atmosphere (Baruch and Lin,
2012).
Knowledge transfer is a human process. However, in virtual teams the process is
heavily dependent on computer-mediated communication (CMC). There are a
number of limitations for CMC. For instance, it is difficult to transfer complex
knowledge as information is shared without the context and high degree of
standardisation that is required. Feghali and El-Den (2006) believe it is possible to
share the context of information if the whole team works virtually on one shared
document. This way, team members would theoretically build upon each other’s
opinions. Another challenge may be that team members have different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds, which might result in misunderstandings or conflict. Doz et al.
(2001) suggest that before virtual teams start working together, they should get
together in person and create “knowledge architecture.” Gartner describes
knowledge architecture as identifying and organising information in both paper and
digital form and re-evaluating the needs of the individuals and the business for
specific knowledge. Knowledge architecture defines knowledge processes and how
new knowledge is captured and managed (2013). Meeting and defining knowledge
architecture within the team will help to determine who possesses what type of
knowledge and how it should be shared with others. What is more, personal
19
interaction will help the team get to know each other and build trust, which will make
communication more effective later on.
To summarise, the ability of an individual to share their knowledge with others while
working virtually is dependent on their virtual competency and computer literacy as
well as the motivation to share their wisdom, skills, and experiences. It has been
suggested that knowledge sharing may be more effective if people first get together
and learn who possesses what kind of knowledge and skills. Very often team
members have a lot of knowledge to share from previous roles. Moreover, people
always learn new things; and there are opportunities to create new knowledge, even
when working virtually. The next chapter will examine how this is done.
3.6.Knowledge creation in virtual team
New knowledge is created by combining existing knowledge. Working in teams does
not simply result in bringing different pieces of knowledge together: melding and
integrating previously dispersed knowledge results in new insights and often
innovation. There are a few steps organisations should take to facilitate the melding
process. First of all, all knowledge should be as explicit as possible with all team
members having equal and transparent access. Additionally, communication should
be frequent to share the context of the information. Lastly, members should try to
meet regularly face to face to maintain a local context (Doz et al., 2001).
Moreover, research by Nonaka and Konno (1998) explains that knowledge creation
is the result of the dynamics between tacit and explicit knowledge. Researchers have
identified four different ways of creating new knowledge: socialisation,
externalisation, combination, and internalisation.
20
Figure 1. The SECI model (De Geytere, 2008).
Socialisation is the process of creating tacit knowledge by, for instance, sharing
experiences or learning from others. Externalisation is the conversion of tacit
knowledge into explicit: for example, writing down meeting notes, articles, etc.
Combination is about learning from existing explicit knowledge, for instance from a
book and using it to create new knowledge. Lastly, internalisation is about converting
explicit knowledge into tacit. A good example is university education, which is later
applied in practice at work (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Research by Watad and Jenkins (2010) reports that virtual working arrangements,
which remove social face-to-face interactions, have a negative effect on creating
new knowledge by socialisation. On the other hand, virtual workers are much better
at creating new knowledge by externalising and combination. Creating knowledge by
internalisation was found not to be affective. Nevertheless, the research
demonstrates that creating new knowledge while working virtually is still possible.
Researchers agree that both tacit and explicit knowledge creation occurs when
working virtually, although the knowledge needs to be codified first in order to be
transferred. The following chapter will discuss best practices for knowledge creation,
as well as knowledge sharing.
21
3.7.Best Practices for Knowledge Creation and Sharing
To encourage knowledge creation and sharing, Gibson and Cohen suggest creating
“learning cohorts,” or learning groups which help to shape informal networks but
which will also provide subject matter experts with a platform to share their
knowledge (Gibson and Cohen 2002).
Moreover, team managers need to evaluate what kind of barriers their teams
encounter when sharing knowledge. Most often, the main barriers are fear of
criticism or fear of misleading other people (Ardichvilli et al., 2002). Individuals will be
more likely to share knowledge if they feel they are not being judged.
There is a strong link between a training and virtual team performance, yet many
organisations do not invest as much in development of virtual workers as they do in
development of employees located physically in the office. Providing training for soft
skills, such as team working and interpersonal skills, would make a great difference
to performance of virtual teams (Lepsinger and DeRosa, 2010).
Very often face-to-face contact is either impossible or very rare. Therefore,
managers need to ensure that all of the team members have got excellent
communication skills. Timely, two-way communication is often crucial to the success
of projects. Therefore, supporting development of communication skills, such as
writing skills, telephone etiquette or presentation skills will also greatly help team
members to communicate and learn from each other (Lepsinger and DeRosa, 2010).
Very often knowledge creation and sharing takes place in an informal context.
However, since companies attach great value to knowledge, they also need to
ensure it is managed for the best results. The next chapter will address how virtual
teams manage their knowledge.
22
3.8.How virtual teams manage their knowledge?
The virtual way of working is very different from face-to-face work. As a result,
managers need to adapt different managerial methods to manage their human and
knowledge capital. The research in this area is very limited. However, research by
Kumar et al. (2004) has summarised five strategies for managers of globally
distributed teams. The first approach is “sequentialising teamwork” in which work is
handed back and forth between team members. Individuals have to wait for others to
finish their tasks before starting their own, so work cycles may become prolonged.
This approach is not suitable for complex projects as it is easy to misinterpret
information and make wrong assumptions. The second strategy is “using
representation and mediating artefacts” in which teams create virtual environments
where they can operate. Another approach is “modular work division and integration”
where work is divided between team members and occurs in parallel. This approach
requires intensive collaboration during the integration of work. The fourth approach is
“virtual collaboration” with the use of teleconferencing, video conferencing, chatting,
desktop sharing or real time collaboration tools. Lastly, “boundary spanning” may be
a solution adopted when fully virtual work is not efficient enough. Boundary spanners
range across industries and geographies to share their knowledge with others. The
outlined strategies can be used individually or in combination (Kumar et al., 2004).
These methods provide suggestions as to how managers can manage their team’s
knowledge. However, team members also need to agree on managing the flow of
knowledge between them. The theory of “transactive memory” is concerned with a
group’s memory model (a sum of individual memory models), as well as methods of
communication between the team members (Wegner, 1987). In other words, every
single team member does not need to remember or know everything, because that
23
responsibility is split between all of the team members. The theory suggests that
teams can create a structure to divide the responsibility of managing knowledge
among members. Such a division reduces the amount of knowledge each person
needs to absorb. Teams with high transactive memory know who to ask for advice
and collectively make decisions faster and more effectively (Fulk et al., 2005).
The theories outlined relate to management methods and skills that can be applied
to optimise knowledge management. However, there are also tools (programmes,
software, and applications) that can help managers and their teams manage
knowledge. Very often employees use only email and telephone to communicate
when working remotely. However, increasingly firms also use intranets, which are
internal networks accessible only to employees, video-conferencing, tele-
conferencing, desktop sharing tools or instant messaging. The next chapter will
evaluate research on existing tools that help organisations manage their knowledge.
3.9.Knowledge management – tools
Virtual teams use a number of IT applications which help them with day-to-day work.
These tools have a number of different functions: they help to communicate, search,
access and organise knowledge, manage workflow, and collaborate (Watad and
Jenkins, 2010). The following section will provide an overview of these tools.
3.9.1.Intranets
The Intranet is a firm’s web-based social network and database of information that is
accessible securely only by employees. Intranets have been recognized as aiding
knowledge management, helping with communication as well as recognising
expertise, especially in a dispersed workforce.
24
Studies report that in companies with intranets, employees find information easy to
find, and they are able to quickly identify experts outside their own departments and
get in touch with them. It has been concluded that because anyone can upload
information into the intranet, knowledge sharing is more effective. Lastly, intranets
also increase network density as individuals can reach out to others directly.
On the other hand, intranets only enable sharing of knowledge that has already been
written down, i.e., as codified knowledge. Tacit knowledge is very difficult to share
over the intranet and employees might find it difficult and time consuming to codify.
Additionally, if the knowledge quality on the intranet is poor, it may lead to an
increased investment of additional time as well as falling participation and usage
(Hollingshead et al., 2002).
Researchers offer few suggestions on how to improve knowledge sharing on an
intranet. First of all, the time required to use it should be reduced. Employees should
be trained on how to efficiently use an intranet and the system itself should be
simplified and made more user-friendly. In some cases, individuals might require
assistance from a third person to gather and share information. Research indicates
that introducing rewards will increase knowledge sharing. However, as the quantity
of knowledge is increased, organisations need to ensure that the quality remains
satisfactory. Lastly, employees need to share a common goal and sense of working
together in order to get satisfaction from contributing their own knowledge
(Hollingshead et al., 2002). Doz et al. (2001) also suggests breaking free from the
geographies, and not letting cultural patter, and historical or geographic roots impact
the work of a multinational, virtual team. Nevertheless, researchers suggest that the
key to success is to learn from the world and tap into local knowledge of technology
and market intelligence from around the world.
25
3.9.2.Knowledge repositories
Another way to facilitate easy knowledge sharing across geographies is to create
knowledge repositories, where information can be added and accessed at any time.
The difference between a knowledge repository and an intranet is that intranet
enables collaboration and virtual social interaction, while a repository is only a
database where information is stored. Finholt et al. (2002) have concluded that peer-
to-peer archives are used more often than expert archives. The reason may be that
peer archives provide more informal information, which feels more personal.
Additionally, employees feel it is a good way to connect with other distant
employees. However, it can be argued that such archives are only useful if they are
well organised, information can be found easily and quickly; and if they are updated
regularly.
Such knowledge repositories in an enterprise context are called Content
Management Systems (CMS). They enable users to access, publish and modify
content, which can be in the form of text, graphics, audio, video, as well as code
(Wikipedia, 2013). According to Gartner’s report (2012), leaders in the market of
Enterprise Content Management include Microsoft (Office 365, SharePoint), IBM
(Notes), Oracle (WebCenter), OpenText, EMC (On Demand) and Hyland Software
(OnBase). The Gartner report also includes Alfresco and Xerox as the most visionary
systems on the market. Additionally, there are also smaller, emerging companies
that offer content management with more social collaboration features such as
Huddle.
26
3.9.3.Social Networking Tools
To address the lack of social interaction among team members, organisations resort
to using online social networking tools like “Facebook for business.” Microsoft has
acquired Yammer to support company collaboration, file sharing and knowledge
exchange. Other popular tools to engage employees include Jive, SocialCast
(created by VMWare) or Chatter (created by SalesForce).
3.9.4.Other tools
Modern IT systems for employee collaboration and knowledge management can be
quite sophisticated. However, employees very often use simple yet effective
methods to communicate and exchange information over distances. This includes
communication via telephone (audio only), instant messenger (text only), as well as
video-conferencing (audio and video). Of course there are programmes which have
additional functionality. For instance, Webex and Google Hangout allow not only
video-conferencing, but also desktop sharing so that employees can see each
other’s screens and therefore jointly work on a document.
Considering the wide variety of tools available on the market, organisations need to
ensure that employees are comfortable using them. Training employees will make
them feel more confident using the tools; it will minimise stress and boost
confidence, which in turn will lead to more virtual collaboration and more knowledge
exchanged (Watad and Jenkins, 2010).
3.10. Research gaps
Studies agree that there is a difference in the way in which knowledge is shared and
managed in an office environment and virtually. However, researchers have divided
27
opinions on sharing tacit knowledge virtually. Many argue that organisational
performance is affected because of the inability to share tacit knowledge virtually
(Doz et al, 2001; Watad and Jenkins, 2010). Others demonstrate that it is still
possible via a transcription of opinions and ideas and by working on projects
simultaneously rather than sequentially (Feghali and El-Den, 2006).
Another point to consider is that the speed of technological advancement is
increasing. Moore’s Law (MemeBridge, 2013) states that the processing power of
computers is doubling every two years. With such rapid technological change,
product life cycles are shortened. Therefore, software and IT tools are being created,
upgraded or taken off the market in short periods of time. As a result, most of the
research into what tools virtual teams are using may be irrelevant to today’s
discussion if conducted more than three years ago. More research is needed into
solutions available on the market today.
The paper has been structured to confirm or reject existing theories, to address the
gaps in the research and to explore technologies currently used for knowledge
creation, sharing and management. The next chapter will present the research
framework.
28
4.Research Framework
The research will address two types of questions. First of all how knowledge is
created, shared, and managed in virtual teams, and secondly what IT tools are being
used by companies and individuals to share, create, and manage knowledge.
Interviewing has been selected as a data collection method due to the suitability to
best address the research questions. Interviews are suitable if the study is
exploratory as their semi-structured nature allows probing for more details. The
semi-structured approach was chosen because it allows for the collection of data on
a set of specific questions, as well as openly asking additional questions and probing
for more details when it is beneficial to the study. Any ambiguities can be clarified
immediately (Gray, 2011). Due to a conversational approach and the assurance of
confidentiality, the interview format also made participants feel comfortable in
sharing their private experiences. The research paradigm adapted by the researcher
is interpretivism (Gephard, 1999). Interpretive research is mainly concerned with
identifying meaning and exploring people’s understanding of situations. It is
assuming that people create their own subjective meanings as they interact with the
world. Therefore, interpretive researchers aim at understanding the phenomena by
analysing those meanings (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991).
The design of the interview questions was based on research conducted previously,
which has been described in the literature review section. The interview questions
aimed to test current research findings and to either agree with researchers
conducting studies in the same area or challenge existing theories. It was also
considered that quantitative measures would usefully supplement qualitative
analysis. Therefore, a few questions required only “Yes” or “No” answers.
29
Participants were asked to respond using a scale or by giving them a number of
answers from which to choose. As a result, it is easier to compare and analyse the
answers. This approach addresses the main challenge with semi-structured
interviews, which may be lengthy and difficult to analyse since the answers vary
significantly.
A sample of sixteen participants was recruited for this study using purposive
sampling.
To be interviewed, applicants had to meet preselected criteria relevant to the
research questions. First of all, the individuals had to confirm that they work as part
of a multinational team and that the team is dispersed across at least two different
countries. Secondly, they had to confirm they work virtually at least 20% of the time
(equal to one day a week), meaning they conduct at least part of their work using
various IT tools and not by interacting with team members face to face during that
time.
The participants volunteered to participate in the research upon seeing the
announcement posted on social media channels, including Facebook, Twitter and
LinkedIn. All interviews were conducted between 23rd of July, 2013 and 20th of
August, 2013. Six interviews were carried out in person when it was possible to meet
in London. Five were conducted by telephone and five using video-conferencing
facilities, Skype, or Google Hangout tools. All interviews were transcribed; and
during the process, the surnames of interviewees, as well as the names of
companies mentioned, were removed due to the confidentiality of the data. Lastly,
the data collected was simplified and standardised to enable comparison and
analysis.
30
Prior to commencing the study, ethical considerations were discussed and subjects
were assured about their anonymity and the confidentiality of the data. The
agreement to proceed was documented by signing a consent form. Participants were
also given all details regarding the study and were presented with a copy of the
Information Sheet (Appendix 1).
The opening set of questions addressed the participant’s role, responsibilities and
the structure of the team, as well as the location of team members and the frequency
of seeing each other face to face. Secondly, the individuals were questioned about
the methods of communication they used when unable to meet, the purpose of each
method, the frequency of usage, and the rating of effectiveness. Participants were
also asked to elaborate on any challenges or problems they encountered when using
these tools.
Next, participants were asked to describe their style of virtual team working, as
identified by Kumar et al. (2004). Subsequent questions addressed the theories of
Chisholm and Nielsen (2009), Griffith et al. (2003), Baruch and Lin (2012) and Bailey
et al. (2012) regarding trust, shared values, norms, understanding, geographical
proximity, different national backgrounds and cultures, different time zones, having a
team leader, and whether spending time face to face either helps or hinders virtual
team performance. To observe knowledge creation and sharing in virtual teams, the
participants were asked about their company’s approach to learning and whether
they were able to learn from their team members, as well as whether others learn
from them. A few questions were also asked to assess the participant’s company
approach to knowledge capturing and management. Lastly, interviewees were asked
to state an opinion as to whether virtual working or traditional face-to-face works
better for them (or whether perhaps in some areas the experience was the same).
31
Although the research findings aim to be objective, it has to be noted that the
interviewees’ responses are subjective because they is derived from their personal
experiences. However, the perceptions of interviewees are of great importantance to
this study. The main focus was to understand how people act in a virtual setting and
for the researcher to gain a holistic view of knowledge creation, sharing, and
management in virtual teams. It is understood that themes emerging from the
qualitative research are often reviewed for verification (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
The structure of this study was designed to eliminate alternative interpretations.
Additionally, the data was checked for accuracy. The presented research aims to be
representative of the sample number of people working virtually. Since the sample is
small – 16 people – the results may not be the same if the questions are applied to
the wider public or different working cultures. Nevertheless, the research aims to be
reliable; and if repeated under the same circumstances, it should produce the same
results. Lastly, the study aims to be valid by presenting a true picture of reality
(Abbott, 2010).
32
5.Research Results
Sixteen participants were interviewed for this study. All of the participants met the
requirement of working on a team spread across at least two different countries and
thus they were required to communicate using online tools at least a portion of their
work time.
The next chapter will present the findings of the interviews, including demographics,
geographical spread, IT tools used, as well as types, reasons and frequency of using
such tools. Additionally, the chapter will discuss challenges encountered when
working virtually, methods of collaboration, tacit and explicit knowledge creation and
ways of managing knowledge.
5.1.Demographics
Out of 16 interviewees, 9 were male and 7 were female. The age of participants
varied from 25 years to 60. Eleven participants were based in London, UK, but there
were also individuals based in other countries: one each in France, Ireland, Poland,
the USA, and India.
When describing their roles, half of the participants worked in management roles,
two as account managers, and two as project managers; others in managing
applications and databases, as well as general managers and management
consultants. Three people worked in technical roles: a software developer, analyst
and technology consultant. Two people were founders of their businesses and the
final two worked in creative industries, one as a film producer and another as a
creative consultant.
33
Considering the size of the team in which participants worked, the smallest one had
4 team members and the biggest one 100. However, 10 out of 16 respondents
worked in teams smaller than 10. While another 5 worked in teams of the size 11-25,
only one individual stated that the size of their team was approximately 100.
5.2.Geographic spread of the team
The size of the company where participants work can be categorised. Responses
show that most worked in either small or large businesses. Four people worked in a
business with less than 10 employees, another four with 10 to 50 employees, one in
a medium-sized enterprise of 50-250 employees and seven respondents worked in a
large enterprise of more than 1,000 employees.
Figure 2. Geographical disparity.
To meet the requirements of the study, the minimum number of countries where the
team members could located was two. However, even those teams that were
situated in two countries were actually spread across at least three different
locations. The most diverse teams had team members in six different countries.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2 3 4 5 6
Nu
mb
er o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Number of countries
Across how many countries is your team dispersed?
34
Figure 3. Reasons for geographical disparity.
When subjects were asked the main reason for the team’s dispersal, almost 70% of
respondents (11) answered that it was mainly because geographic spread enables
them to access global markets and international customers. Almost 33% (5)
explained that wages were much lower in Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia or South
America. The lower cost of work attracted companies to choose team members from
these regions. Additionally, four interviewees mentioned personal reasons for
dispersal--they chose to stay at or move to a certain place because of their partners
or families. Lastly, two respondents stated “access to knowledge’” as the motivating
reason, prioritizing knowledge, and people skills over location.
Participants were also asked about the frequency with which they met. Interestingly,
1 in 3 had never met their team members and all of their communication had been
virtual. One person saw team members as rarely as once a year while almost 50%
saw their colleagues 2 to 4 times a year. One person had face-to-face contact once
in two months, while another two, most often once or twice a month.
11
5
4
2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Global Markets
Lower cost
Personal reasons
Access to knowledge
Different cultures
What is the reason for the team to be dispersed?
Number of respondents
35
Figure 4. Frequency of face-to-face meetings.
5.3. IT tools used for communication
Since many of the participants rarely or never saw their team members face to face,
the next part of the research was meant to evaluate how they communicated and
worked together. A number of questions were asked regarding communication
methods and IT tools used.
5.3.1. Email
All participants reported frequently using email throughout the day. Mostly
respondents used Outlook to access their emails, but some also accessed Gmail,
Mac Email as well as private corporate mailboxes. There was no difference between
their functionality. However, there are slight differences in what people used email
for. Most subjects responded that they used email for daily communication, asking
for information, feedback, opinions, sharing information, updates, news, and contact
details. Nevertheless, four respondents had slightly different responses, stating they
do use email, but it is not their main method of communication. One participant
5
1
7
1
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Never
Once a year
2-4 times a year
Once in 2 months
1-2 a month
Number of respondents
Freq
uen
cy o
f m
eeti
ngs
How often do you meet your team members?
36
responded that email was only used during out of office hours, explaining that during
office hours, everyone was at their computers and it was easier to reach them via
instant messenger for anything urgent or to clarify any doubts or share information
about daily phone calls. Another stated that email was only used for communication
with other teams, again quoting messenger and phone as primary methods of
communicating within the team. Additionally, two respondents used email only to
connect with individuals outside their organisation. Although email is still being used
all the time throughout the day, the research has noticed a change in people’s
behaviours as some individuals begin to favour other communication methods to
reduce the number of emails. The reason behind this shift is the low effectiveness of
emails in conveying what one thinks and wants to communicate. On average,
participants rated email effectiveness as 3.19, on a scale of 1 (very ineffective) to 5
(very effective). The main problem with email is miscommunication. One participant
reported: “Even when two managers tried to communicate via email, they did not
understand each other as they were thinking about two completely different things.”
Another explained: “Occasionally I don’t understand what is meant in an email, but
then I call and ask for clarification.” The responses show that people find it hard to
explain certain things in written form only. As a result, their team members do not
understand what is required, do not complete the job, or sometimes duplicate their
efforts. Another problem is that email is not immediate. A number of participants
complained that often emails get “lost,” are not answered at all or on time. This
challenge is amplified when people work in different time zones: the answer might be
delayed by another few hours.
37
5.3.2.Phone
All participants of the study reported using the phone for communication. Moreover,
75% also used teleconferencing, which enables numerous participants to be on the
same call. Use of teleconferencing is not dependant on the size of the team or
organisation. Large enterprises use their proprietary systems and software such as
Cisco to access teleconferencing, but smaller businesses find other ways to connect
via GoToMeeting for a small monthly fee or they use free software such as Skype or
Google Hangout. All of these tools can be used for video-conferencing. The next
section will explain the reasons for using one or another method.
Figure 5. Frequency of telephone communication.
Phone communication was used very frequently: for half of the respondents it was
used at least a few times a day. The reason why people used the phone in virtual
teams was that 11 out of 16 had regular team updates over the phone. 8 participated
on a weekly basis and 3 on a daily one. It was reported that even though they
couldn’t see each other and often missed visual clues, such as body language and
people’s reactions; it was still the best way to have a discussion with the whole team,
3
5
3
3
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
All day
Few times a day
Once a day
Few times a week
Once a week
Once a month
Less than once a month
No. of Respondents
How often do you use a phone to communicate with your team members?
38
and to share ideas and feedback. In some cases, audio conferences were supported
visually by sharing the view of desktops to “show” something to the group or to
present PowerPoint slides. Desktop sharing will be explained further in a later
section.
Four participants also reported that the phone was the best way to obtain urgent
information. They called to ask a question or follow up on an email that had been
sent earlier. Interviewees also explained that they used the phone if they wanted to
talk about a problem, have an informal chat with someone, needed to explain
something better, required a clarification, wanted to check if other people understood
what they meant, or if it was an emergency. On average, the effectiveness of the
phone was rated high at 4.25. By comparison, the effectiveness of face-to-face
meetings had an average value of 4.375.
5.3.3.Video Conferencing
Video-conferencing is an alternative to phone calls or audio-conferencing where
participants on the call can see each other using video cameras. In large enterprises,
corporate systems such as the popular Cisco Telepresence are used. However,
home workers or smaller offices prefer the more cost-effective options of
GoToMeeting, Skype or Google Hangout. They log in and can connect using
cameras installed in their laptops. Most video-conferencing software offers additional
features such as a chat box as well as desktop sharing so participants can not only
see each other, but can also all look at the same documents or presentations.
In the sample, 10 out of 16 participants used video-conferencing. One participant
had only used it once in a year to present a project to an international team.
Therefore, the analysis will focus on the remaining 9 who are categorised into three
39
groups. The first group (4 people) used video-conferencing for the same purpose as
a physical meeting or phone call. They used video-conferencing very often on a daily
basis or a few times a week for team meetings as well as ad-hoc individual
meetings. The purpose was to discuss strategy, plans, share opinions, ideas, as well
as discuss any technical issues they faced. The second group (3 people) used
video-conferencing for team meetings only, which took place on a regular weekly or
monthly basis. The third group (2 people) did not use video-conferencing for
scheduled meetings, but to see and get to know each other a little bit better. This
occurred approximately once a month. Participants who did use it rated this method
of communication at 4.2 on average.
5.3.4.Desktop Sharing
Desktop sharing occurs when an individual is able to show another person a screen
of their computer and any programmes or documents that are open. The desktop
sharing tool is often integrated with video-conferencing software (Google Hangout,
Skype, Lotus) or office communicators (Skype, Microsoft Communicator). There are
also a number of stand-alone tools, for instance Webex, Meeting Place or Team
Viewer, all of which allow individuals or teams to watch someone else’s computer
screen with a presentation or software demo. Additionally, Google Docs, which
allows the creation of documents in a Google browser instead of Microsoft Word,
also has integrated desktop sharing. If a team decides to work on a document
together, they can see who is making what changes in real time.
In our sample, 11 out of 16 participants used desktop sharing at work. And 2
individuals used Google Docs to collaboratively work on a document or spreadsheet
with their teams. One person used it to present a demonstration to the rest of the
40
team while the remaining 7 used it to show something to another person, for
instance, to explain a technical problem, show how something is done or how a
programme works. Desktop sharing is always used to assist audio or video calls so
people can talk and show what they mean more effectively. As the graph below
shows, this method of communication was not used often for most individuals. Five
participants responded that they used it less than once a month.
Figure 6. Frequency of using Desktop Sharing tools.
5.3.5.File Sharing
File sharing is a method of information sharing rather than communication. However,
as it facilitates the sharing of information, it leads to new knowledge creation for
those who use it.
1
1
1
2
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Few times a day
Once a day
Few times a week
Once a month
Less than once a month
No. of Respondents
How often do you use Desktop Sharing?
41
Figure 7. Reasons for using File Sharing tools.
Only one person did not use file sharing: the remaining 15 participants from the
sample did. However, when asked which software they used for file sharing, one
participant gave two answers, which brings the total to 16. The most popular file
sharing method is Dropbox, which allows for synchronisation across devices. For
instance, if an individual works on a document on their tablet, it automatically saves it
on their computer, on a smartphone, and/or everywhere else the Dropbox application
has been installed. Moreover, data storage of up to 2GB is free of charge, which
makes it very popular among cost-conscious small businesses. The second most
popular method of data sharing is Microsoft Sharepoint, which is an enterprise
platform. It is considered much safer as the enterprise maintains control of the data
stored. Additionally, 3 people used Google Docs, now renamed as “Google Drive” for
storing and sharing documents. Lastly, 2 individuals used private company servers
for file sharing. All of these methods enable access in the office as well as from
home, or on the go.
6
5
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dropbox Sharepoint Google Docs Private software Nothing
No
. of
Res
po
nd
ents
What do you use for File Sharing?
42
Figure 8. Frequency of using File Sharing tools.
Over half of the respondents (six) reported using file sharing all day and another
three - few times a day. When asked why file sharing software was used, the
interviewees gave examples of sharing documents such as project plans, deadlines,
notes, presentations, code, floor plans, designs and fonts. However, most (eight
people) responded that they needed to use the software because of the limitation
placed on the size of attachments in email. The files were too large to be sent via
email. Additionally, two subjects stated that it was easier to share a file with a group
of people.
On average, file sharing was rated as 3.14 in effectiveness to convey a message on
a scale of 1 to 5.
5.3.6.Social Networks
Since the rise of social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn,
companies have started adopting social networks for internal communication.
However, in the sample of 16 respondents, only 3 individuals used social networking
6
3
1
1
2
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
All day
Few times a day
Once a day
Few times a week
Once a week
Once a month
Less than once a month
No. of Respondents
How often do you use file sharing?
43
with their virtual teams. Its effectiveness for communication was not rated high. The
first respondent used a custom-built network called “Community” to share news with
the rest of the team as well as to create sub-pages for specific projects. However,
the network was only used once a week and was rated as ineffective. Similar
responses were provided by the second interviewee. His team used a corporate
social network called “Yammer” only once a week and it was also rated as
ineffective. Lastly the, third respondent used a private group feature on Facebook to
communicate. Despite using it every day, its effectiveness was rated as “average.”
This team used it for sharing articles and news, as well as general knowledge among
the entire team. Facebook, in this instance, was also used as a “watercooler
moment” – an informal virtual meeting space, enabling team members to have group
chats.
5.3.7.Office communicator
Office communicator, also called instant messenger or chat, is a tool that enables
communication via short text messages when connected to the internet or a
corporate network. A high percentage (81% of interviewees) used the messenger to
communicate and rated it as effective, on average 4.00. Additionally, most (10)
responded that they used it all day long while working.
44
Figure 9. Frequency of using an office communicator.
The sample was also asked their purpose in using office communicator. As this was
an open question, they had a chance to provide multiple answers. The majority (7)
used the tool for informal and ad-hoc communication. Five interviewees responded
they used it when they had an urgent work request and required immediate attention
from another person. Interestingly, one interviewee made a fascinating observation
that despite the tool being called “instant messenger,” it did not guarantee an instant
response as the recipients of the chat message were not always at their desks to
see the request or they chose not to respond if they were busy. An equal number of
people stated that they used it for asking quick questions. One person used it for
confidential requests, preferential to a phone conversation that people might
overhear; another one used it for sharing ideas. Only 2 people stated that they used
it to check if someone was available before calling or walking over to their desk. All
the other responses showed they preferred a chat as the default method of
communication.
10
1
1
1
All day
Few times a day
Few times a week
Less than once a month
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No. of Respondents
How often do you use an office communicator?
45
Figure 10. Reasons for using an office communicator.
5.3.8.Other IT tools
Participants were also asked whether they used any other tools to communicate with
their virtual teams apart from email, phone, video-conferencing, desktop sharing, file
sharing, social networks, and office communicators. Four subjects responded that
they used tools for project tracking and team collaboration. For this purpose, two
teams used Basecamp, one used MS Project and one GitHub. Individuals selecting
Basecamp used it only once a month to check the progress of a project and they
rated it average and effective. MS Project was used a few times a day and rated
effective; GitHub a few times a week and rated very effective.
Additionally, one team used a collaborative meeting scheduling tool called Doodle,
which they rated very effective having used it frequently multiple time a day.
7
5 5
2
1 1 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Informal chat Quick questions Urgent request Checkingpeople's
availability
Sharing ideas Confidentialrequests
No
. of
Res
po
nd
ents
Why do you use an office communicator?
46
5.4.Communication challenges in virtual teams
Having discussed all tools virtual teams use for communication, the sample was
asked whether they had ever faced any difficulties when using one of the tools
mentioned in the interview. “Yes, of course!” was the most common answer.
Participants were asked to describe their challenges. The one quoted the most often
was the language barrier. One participant working in technology consulting explained
“We still have some language barriers which, especially on conference calls, are
very difficult to avoid. It can be difficult to understand what they are saying or just the
way they are expressing themselves, or even not catching information. […] In that
kind of situation, I found the messenger much more useful because it is easier to
explain something in writing than actually talking to them.”
Most of the problems encountered were caused by email communication, the mode
used most often. Five subject reported misunderstandings in emails, which resulted
in missed deadlines or work completed incorrectly; alternatively, this required
participants to follow up with a phone call or another method of communication. One
interviewee working in financial services explained, “People forget to pick up their
email, ignore it, or they do not respond because they are busy. It is sometimes
easier talking to them on the phone.” This problem was faced by 25% of respondents
causing work to be delayed.
47
Figure 11. Challenges with using using IT tools for communication.
5.5.Challenges of Virtual Work
Responses to the question about challenges of virtual work varied greatly. The
question was meant to be conversational and encourage subjects to elaborate on
multiple challenges they faced every day. The following paragraph includes
numerous quotes from interviewees to provide more insight.
5 5
4 4
3
2 2 2
1 1 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
No
. of
Res
po
nd
ents
What challenges do you encounter when using IT tools for
communication?
48
Figure 12. Challenges of virtual work.
A communication gap or “not knowing what people have in mind” was one of the
challenges mentioned. Another challenge was not knowing people’s availability
“because you are not in the office, so you do not have morning chats and coffee, you
don’t know what people are up to that given day” as one subject explained.
Additionally, time zones proved problematic “because you have to wait for people to
start work.” Virtual workers also find it difficult to motivate themselves. One
participant explained this problem very well: “That’s the biggest issue, because you
are alone, you can do what you like; you only know you have a phone call at 10am,
so from 8am you can do nothing. I can sit down and read a book for 2 hours and no
one would know.” The research has identified that the problem of motivation affects
not only employees, but also managers who struggle to find work engaging and
ensuring people are interested and connected when online. Another respondent has
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
0
1
2
3
4N
o. o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
What are the main challenges of virtual work?
49
explained that is it particularly difficult during audio conference calls, because people
cannot see each other. Additionally, in this sample most virtual workers work
remotely from home (10 out of 16) and isolation may also be an issue. A different
problem for home workers is that once they find motivation and start working, it may
be difficult to stop because at home there is nothing to remind them about the end of
the working day.
A few individuals declared that cultural differences sometimes caused problems.
Cultural differences are evident in how people work and communicate in different
traditions and in their ways of treating others. A lack of visual cues, such as body
language, is challenging as well as expressing creative work. Lastly, it has also been
noticed that people usually have different levels of technological advancement; and
while for some it may be easy to use a certain type of software, for others it may
prove very problematic. To illustrate this, one interviewee explained “I tried to work
virtually with several organisations, […] but they just wouldn’t get it, they were not
technologically adapted."
5.6.Virtual project collaboration
So far, most of the questions address communication on a virtual team. The next
chapter will address actual work carried out. Since team members did not get a
chance to sit down together and just start working, they selected their approach from
three options relating to the theory of Kumar et al. (2004) discussed in Chapter 3.8.
Most of the respondents chose multiple answers, explaining that the style of work
depended on the project. 75% responded that they adapted “modular work division
and integration” by dividing the job into smaller tasks among team members and
carrying out work in parallel. 50% adapted “sequentialising teamwork” to hand work
50
back and forth to and from one another. The least popular approach was
“representation and mediating artefacts” with 37.5% respondents adopting it. The
fourth approach identified by Kumar et al. (2004) as “virtual collaboration” was
adopted by all respondents due to their reliance on IT tools to communicate and
conduct work.
Interestingly, the only respondents who claimed that they hadn’t encountered any
problems when working on projects collaboratively and virtually were 4 who worked
with sequentialising teamwork only. However, there was no correlation between
other methods of working virtually and the types of problems encountered. Out of 12
individuals, 3 explained that such a way of working led to missed timelines or
deadlines. Another 4 talked about work being slower due to misunderstandings, not
dividing the job correctly, tasks not handed over on time, or people not recognizing
priorities. Other challenges mentioned included teams not willing to work
collaboratively, different levels of experience and hence misunderstanding on the
team, over-reliance on technology, as well as different levels of technological
advancement.
5.7.What helps and hinders virtual team performance
The following questions addressed the theories of Chisholm and Nielsen (2009),
Griffith et al. (2003), Baruch and Lin (2012) and Bailey et al. (2012) to confirm what
helped or hindered virtual team performance according to our sample. The following
scale was used:
1 = Greatly hinders,
2 = Hinders,
3 = Average,
51
4 = Helps,
5 = Greatly helps.
The average ratings from the sample present that trust, shared understanding,
shared goals, and spending time face to face greatly helped virtual teams perform
better. Having a team leader and strong organisational values helped as well. On the
other hand, different time zones were rated as the only factor hindering the team’s
performance. Different national backgrounds and geographic spreads were rated as
“neutral.” The next paragraphs will look into detailed ratings to determine how
opinions were divided.
Figure 13. Factors influencing virtual team performance.
The subsequent set of graphs presents individual answers from the sample.
2.07
2.88
3.13
4.00
4.13
4.53
4.60
4.73
4.73
Different time zones
Geographic spread
Different national backgrounds & culture
Strong organisational values
Having a team leader
Shared goals
Spending time face to face
Trust
Shared understanding
1 =Greatly hinders, 2 = Hinders, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Helps, 5 = Greatly helps
What helps and hinders virtual team performance?
52
12
4
0
0
0
0 5 10 15
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Does trust help or hinder virtual team performance?
1
6
4
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Do different national backgrounds help or hinder virtual team performance?
10
5
1
0
0
0 5 10 15
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Do shared goals help or hinder virtual team performance?
12
4
0
0
0
0 5 10 15
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Does shared understanding help or hinder virtual team
performance?
Figure 14. Effect of trust on virtual team
performance.
Figure 15. Effect of shared understanding
on virtual team performance.
Figure 16. Effect of shared goals on virtual
team performance.
Figure 17. Effect of different national
backgrounds on virtual team performance?
53
0
2
1
9
4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Do different times zones help or hinder virtual team
performance?
1
3
6
5
1
0 2 4 6 8
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Does geographic spread help or hinder virtual team
performance?
11
4
1
0
0
0 5 10 15
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Does spending time face to face help or hinder virtual team
performance?
4
11
1
0
0
0 5 10 15
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Does having a team leader help or hinder virtual team
performance?
Figure 18. Effect of geographic spread on
virtual team performance?
Figure 19. Effect of different time zones on
virtual team performance?
Figure 20. Effect of spending time face to
face on virtual team performance?
Figure 21. Effect of having a team leader on
virtual team performance?
54
5
7
4
0
0
0 2 4 6 8
Greatly help
Help
Neutral
Hinder
Greatly hinder
No. of Respondents
Do strong organisational values help or hinder virtual team
performance?
It is noticeable from the graphs that opinions were divided on the effects of different
national cultures and geographic spreads. The group who responded that different
national cultures hindered virtual team performance had encountered language
barriers and differences in the style of working. On the other hand, the group who
believed that different cultures helped foster different ways of thinking on the team
believed it helped in problem solving and achieving varied perspectives. Additionally,
having different nationalities on the team helped in the understanding of international
markets. Similarly, geographic spread helped to establish access to multiple
geographies, especially if clients were already based in those areas. On the other
hand, some answered that was a hindrance as some team members were not
always accessible and it was more difficult to work across distances.
Figure 22. Effect of strong organisational
values on virtual team performance?
55
5.8.Learning in virtual teams
The set of questions on learning was designed to explore knowledge creation,
sharing, and management in virtual teams. To determine whether tacit knowledge
creation was possible, subjects were asked whether they were able to learn from
their team members. Only 3 responded that they were not able to learn. The
remaining 13 confirmed that they did indeed learn from others virtually.
Five individuals confirmed that they learned from what other people said on the
phone or communicated via email. Another three simply observed how other people
did their work and learned from their approach. Additionally three learned by asking
the right kind of questions and seeking others for advice. One stated that he learned
in exactly the same way as if he were in a physical meeting or conversation; and one
responded that generally she learned from people’s expertise by either observing,
noticing how other people communicate, or by asking questions.
Next, in observing their companies’ approaches to learning and knowledge creation,
75% of the sample responded that their companies actively encouraged training.
Five organisations encouraged both tacit and codified knowledge development by
offering courses and training as well as encouraging mutual learning. Three
promoted only structured learning, while four supported only tacit learning. Creative
ways to encourage tacit learning included organising competitions, encouraging
employees to share advice with other teams, as well as asking employees to train
others.
Everyone in the sample stated that others could benefit from what they knew and
had learnt previously. Two individuals explained that this was required by their
organisations via formal reports and official handovers. However, others explained
56
that they willingly and voluntarily shared their knowledge by providing advice,
offering mentoring, joining meetings and calls, sharing their knowledge via social
media, or blogging. The importance of sharing knowledge was very well articulated
by one individual who, when asked if others could learn from him, responded ‘I hope
so, otherwise I am wasting my time!’
To assess whether organisations used knowledge repositories, questions were
asked as to whether or not participants’ knowledge was being codified for the benefit
of others. 9 out of 16 individuals responded that their organisations did encourage
them to write down what they knew and all 9 confirmed that their company also had
a place where documents could be stored. However, only two-thirds of the sample
confirmed that everyone else in their firm had access to those documents and was
able to learn from them. Lastly, a vast majority (87.5%) confirmed that in the event of
not knowing something, they always knew who they could ask for advice or help.
This confirms that the majority of teams have a high transactive memory (Fulk et al.,
2005).
5.9.Comparison of virtual and traditional work
The final question of the interview queried the sample to offer an opinion as to
whether a virtual or traditional way of working resulted in the best outcome, or
whether it was the same in either case. The participants were asked to assess their
team communication, speed of work, problem solving ability, method of learning from
each other, information sharing, exchange of ideas, and overall team performance.
57
Figure 23. Comparison of team performance virtually and face-to-face.
According to the diagram above, a majority believes that face to face work is
superior to virtual, except for information sharing. Most believe it is as easy to share
information in person as it is online; three individuals believe it is actually easier to do
so virtually. When it comes to team communication, speed of work, problem solving,
learning from each other and exchange of ideas, the sample by far believes it is
better done in person. However, when assessing overall team performance, the
number of votes for “in person” and “it’s the same experience” was almost equal.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Team communication
Speed of work
Problem solving
Learning from each other
Information sharing
Exchange of ideas
Overall team performance
Better when workign virtually Better when working face-to-face It's the same experience
58
6.Discussion
Primary research results agree with prior research findings, but also shed more light
on the use of technology in virtual team communication and collaboration. This
chapter will address advantages and challenges of working virtually as described by
the sample population. It will be a starting point for discussing a few key points,
including face-to-face contact, building social capital on virtual teams, virtual
collaboration, creation of new knowledge, storing and managing knowledge,
embracing cultural differences, as well as technology.
6.1.Advantages and challenges
Both the research and individuals who took part in interviews agree there are many
advantages to virtual working. First of all, people appreciate the flexibility it gives
them – they can choose where, when, and how they want to work. Virtual workers
often work from home, thus saving money and time compared to commuting. Those
who prefer a more social setting choose to work in an office, a co-working, shared
space, or even in public cafes. Managers and business owners appreciate that
virtual working provides them with access to the best talent and employees with
specific skills, regardless of their location. Moreover, they can save money by hiring
individuals in countries with lower wages and are not required to invest in an office
infrastructure. A dispersed team provides insights and knowledge about diverse
markets, cultures, and geographies. If team members’ locations are selected
strategically, the team can even provide 24/7 coverage around the globe.
All the advantages mentioned above can be turned into disadvantages if the team
fails to address the challenges they face. For instance, if people choose to work from
home, they may feel isolated and disengaged. Many virtual workers struggle with
59
motivation as there is no one observing what they do most of the time. Moreover, if
home is a place for both work and personal life, it is difficult to set boundaries; and
some individuals feel that they work all they time. Additionally, because the teams
are dispersed in different geographies, they may be required to work at a time that is
most suitable for others. This often causes problem especially if the time difference
is greater than five hours. For example, San Francisco and London are eight hours
apart, London and Sydney eleven hours. As a result, one side of the team will
always have to sacrifice their early mornings or evenings.
What is more, since people have to rely on technology to communicate, a lot of
problems are caused by technical failures and miscommunications in the written or
spoken word, as well as a lack of responsiveness from people.
The research has also identified many disadvantages, or rather, challenges that
need to be tackled. Chisholm and Nielsen (2009) talk about the importance of social
capital and specifically trust, shared understanding, and vision in team building. The
research findings confirm that strong social capital greatly helps virtual team
performance and that it is more difficult to build when working virtually than working
face to face. The research also agrees with Baruch and Lin (2012) that a lack of trust
can undermine team performance. Additionally, diverse cultural backgrounds and
nationalities can cause misunderstandings (Bailey et al. 2011), as has been
demonstrated by a number of examples provided by interviewees. Doz et al. (2001)
stated that virtual teams often struggle with transferring experiential knowledge, but
the sample also indicated that it was possible and that all of the participants learnt
from others’ experiences. However, what was considered difficult was sharing visual
knowledge, e.g. ideas about design, how something should look like. Creative work
has not been discussed in the research sources.
60
Moreover, research has paid too little attention to the issue of motivation and social
isolation of virtual workers at home as well as blurred lines of work and life. Since
most virtual workers are only in contact with their team members once a day or at
most a few times a day, some find it very difficult to motivate themselves. What is
more, once they feel motivated and start working, they find it difficult to stop; and
most work longer hours because there is nothing to act as an end to the work day.
There is no need to leave the office and “go home.” Virtual workers might work very
lengthy and unfavourable hours if they need to communicate with team members or
clients in distant geographies and time zones.
Some challenges have also been encountered with technologies used for virtual
communication and collaboration. People often have different preferences and voice
frequent complaints including not being able to reach people.
6.2.Discussion points
Co-location helpful, but not required
A number of team members interviewed have never met each other, yet they
manage to agree on working rules, communication methods, and carry out
successful projects. This demonstrates that face-to-face contact is not always
necessary. It is possible to make the team work well fully virtually. Gibson and
Cohen (2002) suggest regular meetings via phone or video-conferencing if physical
contact is not possible; and this is exactly what most teams are practising. What is
more, many teams report that the results of their work are exactly the same as if they
were working on a physical team.
61
Social capital is very important
Findings confirm that social capital is very important. Trust, shared understanding,
and shared goals greatly help virtual teams perform better. Therefore, teams need to
find a way to build social capital virtually. Again, regular contact is recommended as
well as making yourself “visible” online. Most of the current IT tools show whether a
person is online or not and it is very helpful to know there is someone on the other
side of the screen to answer questions.
Technology for virtual collaboration
Today’s IT tools can provide a similar experience to standing in a room full of people
with colourful pens and a flip chart. Most teams already use collaborative
technologies such as Basecamp, Google Docs, Google Hangout or desktop sharing
to see each other and show what they’re working on. Those tools enable the team to
work simultaneously on a project. Those examples prove that research by Feghali
and El-Den (2008) is correct in assuming that sharing tacit knowledge and joint
problem solving is possible. The only distinction is that the researchers provide
examples of using online forums for achieving this purpose, while the sample
examined in this research uses more sophisticated social collaboration tools. Kumar
et al. (2004) has identified five strategies for managers of distributed teams. This
paper confirms that all five are being used by virtual workers and their choice
depends on a number of factors. For instance, sequentialising teamwork operates
best in teams that are greatly dispersed. When one individual finishes work, they can
hand it over to another team member who starts a few hours later ensuring the
continuity of the work. Teams who create virtual environments and work together
62
virtually are usually located in the same time zone or in 1-3 hour proximity. A
modular work division is adopted by teams who do not use any advanced software
which could help them manage projects. Instead, they prefer to simply divide the job
among themselves and work in parallel.
Knowledge creation
The paper has proven that new knowledge can still be created virtually as contrasted
to research by Watad and Jenkins (2010), who argue that virtual working
arrangements have a negative effect on knowledge creation by socialisation, i.e., the
transfer of tacit to tacit knowledge. Most of the participants of the current study have
confirmed that they are still able to learn from team members, from their approach to
work, and from what they communicate while working virtually. Moreover, the virtual
workers also learn a lot of codified information shared virtually, and ¾ of companies
encourage formal training.
Knowledge repositories
Knowledge repositories are meant to be central locations where employees can
store company documents, written processes, and knowledge. Content Management
Systems such as Microsoft Sharepoint and IBM Notes described in the literature
review are used, but only by large enterprises. Half of the sample interviewed work in
sizable firms and use such CMS systems. However, what the research discovered is
that smaller teams who cannot afford CRM systems are finding other ways to store
knowledge and it is usually done by using private collaboration software or social
networks. Therefore, the research agrees with Finholt et al. (2002) who state that
peer-to-peer knowledge repositories are used more often than expert portals, and
they are also more relevant.
63
Embracing cultural differences
Researchers have noted that cultural diversity in a team may lead to
misunderstanding and miscommunication (Bailey, 2013), which was confirmed by
the sample interviewed for this paper. The problem is twofold – team members may
not understand each other if their knowledge of the language used for
communication is not at the same level. Secondly, because of a lack of visual cues,
everyone has a different perception and vision of what is being discussed. However,
interviewees reported that having team members from different countries help them
look at things from a different angle, problems were addressed differently and more
diverse ideas were generated. This demonstrates that if cultural diversity is
embraced, it may lead to greater team success.
Embracing technology
Teams recognise that using the right kind of software can help them work more
efficiently. However, a common challenge is that team members are usually at
different levels of technological advancement in the beginning. One interviewee
recounted how they had to be taught by another team member to use software for
project management. Another participant discovered how ineffective the existing
software was. To improve virtual collaboration, he introduced a new way of
developing software and taught the rest of the company how to do it. Those two
examples present how team members can train each other internally to ensure
everyone is at the same level before the actual work commences. Such an approach
64
greatly helps to make virtual working more effective as the work does not get
delayed by people who don’t know how to use the software.
What it more, by exploring the various ways of working of the16 virtual teams, an
early trend has been identified not previously noted in the research. People try to
“get away from email.” Because communication is online, some people may suffer
from “information overload” and try to organise it in a better way. Therefore, people
look for other ways to communicate. One team explained that they only used email if
they needed to communicate with clients or third parties. Several individuals talked
about using instant messenger for quick queries and the phone for more complex
discussions in order to replace email completely. Emerging project management and
team collaboration software aim at reducing the number of incoming emails to make
communication more collaborative.
65
7.Recommendations
Based on the primary and secondary research conducted, five recommendations
can be made to virtual teams to ensure they effectively create, share, and manage
knowledge.
Get to know each other just like you would when starting to work with a physical
team. It will not only enhance social capital, build trust between team members, but
the co-workers will also be able to learn about each other’s experiences and skills.
Once the team learns who knows what, knowledge can be mapped out and
knowledge architecture built. It will become easier to identify the best person for a
given job, and because of that person’s existing knowledge (transactive memory), it
will be easier for them to learn new skills than any other team member.
Set communication rules. As a team, agree on which software to use and for what
purpose, as well as how often. It is also helpful to set behavioural rules such as
“leave your ego at the door” (as adopted by one team participating in this research).
Such rules will create equal virtual competency (Wang and Haggerty, 2009) and lead
to greater knowledge transfer.
Establish regular contact. Even if face-to-face meetings are not possible, time set
aside for regular phone or video-conferencing meetings will promote a greater flow of
communication and will build up social capital within the team. Additionally, it is
helpful to make yourself accessible and available by simply being logged on and
visible on the communicator or social media channels.
Promote learning and sharing. Learning has to be actively encouraged by
organisations and managers. As research indicates, it is possible to share both tacit
66
and explicit knowledge virtually. However, managers need to ensure there are
opportunities and time made available to do it. Knowledge sharing can be
encouraged by organising virtual brainstorming sessions, group chats, or social
occasions.
Capture knowledge. Not enough effort it being made to capture people’s
knowledge. There may be significant consequences if a person departs from a small
team. Managers need to ensure that processes are written down and stored in a
location accessible to everyone else. Moreover, it helps to write down ideas, case
studies, and success stories. Individuals should be encouraged to codify and share
their knowledge by writing articles, blogs, and running presentations or webinars for
others.
67
8. Implications for further research
A number of researchers have agreed that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
share tacit knowledge virtually (Doz et al, 2001; Watad and Jenkins, 2010).
However, the sample interviewed for this paper has demonstrated that it is
achievable. They are able to learn from each other and build on each other’s
experience while working fully virtually. The technology is developing rapidly, and
there are many new software products available on the market that facilitate easier
communication. The findings from research conducted three years ago might be not
relevant anymore. Therefore, more research is required as to how tacit knowledge is
currently being shared and developed in virtual teams.
Secondly, as described by Kumar et al. (2004), there are a number of proven
methods as to how virtual teams work on projects. On a small scale, this research
has tried to address how popular each method is and in what situations it is most
effective as well as what challenges can be encountered. However, more academic
research is required into simultaneous virtual collaboration.
Additionally, more research is needed into the topic of building social capital within
virtual teams. The findings demonstrate that social capital is enormously useful. Best
practices from academic sources would be greatly helpful to managers.
68
9.Summary
The paper commenced with a comprehensive literature review describing how virtual
teams engage in projects and communicate with each other as they address learning
and new knowledge creation in virtual settings as well as an evaluation of how is
knowledge preserved and shared with others. Following this, the methodology for the
research was presented as a set of 16 recorded interviews with individuals who
worked virtually with team members located across at least two different countries.
The primary research led to a number of insights. Most of the teams were dispersed
because of lower cost, access to international markets, and for personal reasons.
Each person had been thoroughly interviewed to find out how they communicated
and collaborated with others virtually. All of the teams used email and phone for
basic communication. However, what has become more important as a substitute for
a lack of personal contact is video-conferencing as well as instant messengers and
social networks. Respondents claimed that they were able to learn from each other
and thus transfer tacit knowledge, which had been previously classified as very
difficult to share. It is apparent that teams are also becoming very creative and are
readily using technology to capture knowledge, which is considered one of the most
valuable organisational resources.
Among the points discussed in this paper are issues related to building social capital
and embracing technology, as well as cultural diversity, the importance of face-to-
face meetings, and regular contact. Lastly, a number of recommendations have been
made aimed at improving the effectiveness of virtual teams.
Virtual working is certainly the way to go for many companies, but managers need to
realise how different it is from the traditional way of working. By raising awareness
69
and sharing best practices, virtual working may become as effective as traditional
method in the years to come.
70
10.References
Abbott, D., 2010. Sociology Revision - Methodology, Positivism and
Interpretivism. Available at:
<http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/sociology/comments/sociology-revision-
methodology-positivism-and-interpretivism>. [Accessed 23 June 2013].
Akhgar, A., 1995. The role of socialization in Knowledge management in virtual
Teams. (15), pp.97–102.
Alaei, A. et al., 2012. The Role of Knowledge Management in Created
Organizational Innovation. 2(2), pp.1136–1141. Available at:
<http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 2(2)1136-1141,
2012.pdf> [Accessed 24 April 2013].
Ardichvilli, A., Page, V., Wentling, T., 2002. Motivation and Barriers to Participation
In Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice. Available at:
<http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc3/papers/id78.pdf>
[Accessed 17 Aug 2013].
Bailey, D.E., Leonardi, P.M. and Barley, S.R., 2011. The Lure of the Virtual.
Organization Science, 23(5), pp.1485–1504. Available at:
<http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/orsc.1110.0703>.
Bailey, S., 2013. How To Beat The Five Killers Of Virtual Working. Available at:
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2013/03/05/how-to-overcome-the-five-
major-disadvantages-of-virtual-working/> [Accessed 30 July 2013].
Baruch, Y. and Lin, C. P., 2012. All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team
performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1155–1168.
71
Chisholm, A. and Nielson, K., 2009. No Title. International Studies of Management
and Organization, 39(2), 7–32.
Colvin, G., 2006. The 100 Best Companies to Work For 2006. Available at:
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/01/23/8366990/>
[Accessed 20 June 2013].
De Geytere, T., 2008. A unified model of dynamic organisational knowledge
creation. Available at: <http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html>
[Accessed 3 Aug 2013].
Doz, Y., Santos, J. and Williamson, P., 2001. From Global to Metanational, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Drucker, P. F., 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest
challenge. California Management Review. 41 (2), 79-94.
Feghali, T. and El-Den, J., 2008. Knowledge transformation among virtually-
cooperating group members. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), pp.92–105.
Available at: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13673270810852412>
[Accessed 17 June 2013].
Finholt, T., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S., 2002. Outsiders and the Inside: Sharing Know-
How Across Space and Time. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler, eds. Distributed Work.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 357–380.
Fulk, J., Monge, P. and Hollingshead, A.B., 2005. Knowledge Resource Sharing in
Dispersed Multinational Teams: Three Theoretical Lenses. In D. L. Shapiro, M. A.
72
Von Glinow, and J. L. C. Cheng, eds., 2005. Managing Multinational Teams: Global
Perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 155–188.
Gartner, 2013. Knowledge Architecture. Available at: <http://www.gartner.com/it-
glossary/knowledge-architect/> [Accessed 31 Aug 2013].
Gephard, R., 1999. Paradigms and Research Methods. Research Methods Forum,
Vol. 4 (Summer 1999). Available at:
<http://division.aomonline.org/rm/1999_RMD_Forum_Paradigms_and_Research_Me
thods.htm> [Accessed 17 July 2013].
Gibson, C.B. and Gibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality : The Effects
of Geographic Dispersion, Electronic Dependence, Dynamic Structure and National
Diversity on Team Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, September 2006,
51, pp.451–495.
Gibson, C. & Cohen, S., 2002. Best Practices for Virtual Team
Effectiveness. Available at: <http://ceo.usc.edu/pdf/G0218427.pdf> [Accessed 17t
Aug 2013].
Gilbert, A. et al., 2012. Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Content
Management. Available at: <http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id=1-
1CK0WK7&ct=121019&st=sb>. [Accessed 26 Jun 2013].
Gray, D.E., 2011. Collecting Primary Data: Interviews. In M. Frenz, K. Nielsen, and
G. Walters, eds. Research Methods in Management. London: SAGE Publications,
pp. 168–194.
73
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. and Neale, M.A., 2003. Virtualness and Knowledge in
Teams: Managing the Love Triangle in Organizations, Individuals, and Information
Technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(2). Available at:
<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30036531?uid=2&uid=4&sid=211023480830
37>.
Hollingshead, A.B., Fulk, J. and Monge, P., 2002. Fostering Intranet Knowledge
Sharing: An Integration of Transactive Memory and Public Goods Approaches. In
Distributed Work. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 335–355.
Kessels, J.W.M., 2001. Learning in organizations: A corporate curriculum for the
knowledge economy. Futures (33) pp.497-506
Kumar, K., Van Fenema, P.C. and Von Glinow, M.A., 2004. Intense Collaboration in
Globally Distributed Teams: Evolving Patterns of Dependencies and Coordination.
ERIMREPORT SERIES RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT. Available at:
<http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/1446/ERS 2004 052 LIS.pdf>.
Lee, A., 2013. Working From Home: The End of an Era?. Available at:
<http://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-management/organisational-
behaviour/working-from-home-the-end-of-an-era-2440> [Accessed 18 July 2013].
Lepsinger, R., DeRosa, D., 2010. Virtual Team Success: A Practical Guide for
Working and Leading from a Distance. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Lohrbeer, T., 2011. Virtual Teams: Pros, Cons & Best Practices. Available at:
<http://blog.fastfedora.com/2011/10/virtual-teams-pros-cons-best-practices.html>
[Accessed 13 Aug 2013].
74
Machlup, F., 1973. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United
States. Princeton University Press.
MemeBridge, 2013. Moore's Law. Available at: <http://www.mooreslaw.org/>
[Accessed 23 Jun 2013].
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed., p. 10-12.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I., Konno. N., 1998. “The Concept of ‘Ba’: Building a Foundation for
Knowledge Creation,” California Management Review 40:3: 116-132.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Orlikowski, W. J., Baroudi, J. J., 1991. Studying Information Technology in
Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems
Research, 2(1), pp. 1-28.
Putnam, R., 1994. Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), pp. 65-78.
Stewart, T. A., 1998. Intellectual Capital, the new wealth of organizations, Nicholas
Brealey Publishing London.
Wang, Y. & Haggerty, N., 2009. Knowledge transfer in virtual settings: the role of
individual virtual competency. Information Systems Journal, 19(6), pp.571–593.
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00318.x [Accessed 28
May 2013].
75
Watad, M.M., Jenkins, G.T., 2010. The Impact Of Telework On Knowledge Creation
And Management. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 11(4).
Wegner, D. M., 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group
mind. In Theories of group behaviour. Pp. 185-208, Springer New York.
Wikipedia., 2013. Content management system. Available at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system> [Accessed 27 Jun
2013].
76
10.1. References: Enterprise Content Management Systems
Alfresco http://www.alfresco.com/
Xerox http://docushare.xerox.com/products/ds_products_ds.html
OpenText http://www.opentext.com/2/global/products/enterprise-content-
management.htm
IBM Notes http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/us/en/ibmnotes/
Microsoft Office 365 http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/products/?CTT=97
Microsoft SharePoint http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/sharepoint/
Yammer https://www.yammer.com/product/
Jive http://www.jivesoftware.com/
SocialCast http://www.socialcast.com/
Chatter https://www.salesforce.com/uk/chatter/overview/
Cisco teleconferencing http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7060/index.html
Cisco TelePresence VCR http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps11450/index.html
GoToMeeting http://www.gotomeeting.co.uk/fec/
Skype http://www.skype.com/en/
Google Hangout http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/
77
11.Appendices
11.1. Appendix 1 - Information Sheet
Department of Management
BIRKBECK
University of London
Malet Street,
London WC1E 7HX
020 7631 6000
Masters’ Dissertation Research: Participant Information Sheet
You are being invited to take part in a research study as part of a student project. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Please ask if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part.
Thank you for reading this.
Who will conduct the research?
Monika Gierszewska, postgraduate student at Birkbeck, University of London, is conducting the research as part of the final year MSc thesis.
Supervisor
The dissertation is supervised by Dr Odile Janne, Lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London.
Title of the Research
Exploration study on how virtual teams create, share and manage knowledge.
What is the aim of the research?
The aim of the study is to explore how is knowledge created, shared and managed in virtual teams, as opposed to traditional teams; as well as examine the effectiveness of IT tools used to share and manage knowledge.
Why have I been chosen?
The research aims to collect responses from at least 15 participants, who must work in multinational companies, spending at least 20% of their time virtually and working with team members situated across at least 2 different locations. You were selected because your profile matches the research criteria.
78
What would I be asked to do if I took part?
Participants are asked to allocate half an hour of their time to answer the interview questions. The interview may be conducted in person, over the phone, Skype or any other virtual video or audio tool.
The questions will cover individual’s role, organisation and the team. They will be asked how the knowledge is created, shared and managed in their teams, as well as what kind of IT tools they use to achieve that. All participants have a right to remain anonymous. Therefore, your responses will be reported anonymously (names of individuals and organisations will be changed in the transcripts, to protect your privacy). Only anonymised comments will be used to support trends highlighted in the analysis.
What happens to the data collected?
All interviews will be recorded and transcribed. The data will be analysed and the findings presented in the final study. The data is security stored with the researcher and the transcripts of interviews will be deleted once the dissertation is completed and assessed.
How is confidentiality maintained?
I respect the confidentiality of all participates. I can assure you that data collected from the interviews will be collected and transcribed with care, as well as stored securely. The data will not be used for any other purposes, than the research study explained here. Your responses will be reported anonymously, in such a way that individuals or organisations could not be identified. The data will not be used for any other purposes, than this dissertation.
What happens if I do not want to take part or if I change my mind?
It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will be given this
information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part you are still free to
withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to yourself.
Will I be paid for participating in the research?
Participation is voluntary and unfortunately, as this is a postgraduate research – there is no budget available to compensate for your time. I will ensure there are no out-of-pocket expenses incurred from the participant’s side.
What is the duration of the research?
Duration of each interview is 30 mins.
Where will the research be conducted?
The interview will be conducted either in person at a location convenient for the participant, or over the phone or video conferencing facilities (Skype or Google Hangout).
Will the outcomes of the research be published?
79
The outcomes of the research will be published in the final dissertation, which will be available to fellow Birkeck students, academics and alumni at the library.
Contact for further information
If you have any further questions, please contact Monika Gierszewksa at [email protected] or +44 7896070927.
Thank you.
80
11.2. Appendix 2 - Interview Questions
Details collected before the interview: Name, Organisation, Location.
Interview questions
1. What do you do?
2. Are you part of a team?
3. What does your team work on?
4. How many people do you have in the team?
5. How many people does your company have?
6. What is the structure of your team?
7. Is there a leader?
8. Where are your team members located?
9. What is the reason for your team to be dispersed?
10. How often do you see them face to face?
11. How effective is face to face communication? (Scale: 1 Very Ineffective, 2 Ineffective, 3 Average, 4 Effective, 5 Very
effective)
81
12. When you don’t see each other, how do you communicate?
13. Have you ever faced any difficulties when communicating with people remotely, using one of the methods described above?
Method Yes or No
What do you use it for?
How often do you use it?
All day
Few times a day
Once a day
Few times a week
One a week
One a month
Less than once a month
What programme / software do you use?
How effective is this method to convey what you mean? 1 – Very Ineffective 2 – Ineffective 3 – Average 4 – Effective 5 – Very effective
Phone
Video conferencing (e.g. Skype, Google Hangout, Tandberg)
Desktop Sharing
File Sharing
Corporate or Private Social Networks
Messenger / office communicator
Other 1 (please suggest)
Other 2 (please suggest)
82
14. What is the biggest challenges you’re faced with, when working virtually?
15. When working virtually with others do you:
a) Hand over the work back and forth between each other?
b) Create a virtual environment where you can all work together on a project at the same time?
c) Divide the job and work in parallel?
16. What kind of difficulties have you experienced when working this way? (referring to the answer from Q14)
17. Do the following hinder or help the virtual team performance?
Greatly hinders Hinders Neutral Helps Greatly helps
Trust
Shared understanding
Shared goals
Different national backgrounds & culture
Geographic spread
Different time zones
Spending time face to face
Having a team leader
Strong organisational values
83
18. Are you able to learn from your team members when working virtually? If so, how?
19. Does your company actively encourage employees to learn new things? How is it done?
20. Can other people benefit from what you’ve learnt and what you already know? If so, how?
21. Does your company encourage you to write down and document what you know?
22. Does your organisation have a way of storing all those documents? Can anyone access it?
23. If you don’t know something, do you know who to ask for help in your team?
24. From your experience is <…select from below...> better when working virtually, face-to-face or is the result equal?
Work virtually Work face-to-face Same experience
when working
virtually and face-
to-face
Team communication
Speed of work
Problem solving
Learning from each
other
84
Information sharing
Exchange of ideas
Overall team
performance
