www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirectInternational Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

Global virtual engineering teams (GVETs): A fertile ground for research inAustralian construction projects context

M. Reza Hosseini, Nicholas Chileshe ⁎

University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Abstract

Implementation of global virtual engineering teams (GVETs) commenced since at least two decades ago, but construction has been behindother industries in terms of harnessing this new paradigm. Nevertheless, GVETs are receiving increasing attention within the construction contextdue to numerous potential benefits they can bring about for the projects. On the other hand, the research about GVETs in Australia is still in itsembryonic stages. Australian scholars noticeably have paid scant attention to GVETs in comparison to their colleagues in other developedcountries. This paper assumes the process of implementation of a GVET as an isolated project. The study then highlights the well-known mainareas of necessary knowledge for managing a GVET project within the construction context based on a project lifecycle approach. Recognizing theweaknesses of existing literature, the paper sets out an agenda for further research within Australian construction projects.© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Global virtual engineering teams (GVETs); Project management; Construction industry; Australia

1. Introduction

The collective effect of many factors has called for conductingfurther research in different aspects of managing constructionprojects. A salient example of the abovementioned drivers is thegrowing awareness of successful widespread adoption of new ICTsrelied strategies in various types of projects in other sectors of theindustry e.g. manufacturing (Brandon et al., 2008; Chinowsky andRojas, 2002). Besides, the undeniable inherent problems in theconstruction industry such as the low performance (Atrostic andNguyen, 2005; Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011) and the invasiveglobalization trend (Algesheimer et al., 2011; Duarte and Snyder,2006) have expedited the move towards performing furtherinvestigation into assorted facets of construction management.Likewise, in the course of two recent decades, the constructionacademic arena has witnessed the publication of many studies withthe aim of exploring the potentials for harnessing the new ICTstechnologies in order to improve the current state in construction

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 883021854; fax: +61 883022252.E-mail addresses: Mohammad.Hosseini@unisa.edu.au (M.R. Hosseini),

Nicholas.Chileshe@unisa.edu.au (N. Chileshe).

0263-7863/$36.00 © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.01.001

industry. Outcomes of the foregoing studies along with the reportsconfirming successful ICTs adoptions within other industries, havepaved the way for merging ICTs into construction (CICA, 1992;Hannus et al., 2003; Maqsood et al., 2012; Peansupap, 2012;Rezgui and Zarli, 2006). Consequently, many heavy ICTs reliedmethods applicable to construction procedures have been identifiedin recent years as effective strategies to improve knowledge andcommunication management in construction projects and facilitatethe globalization of construction companies (Brandon et al., 2008;Peansupap, 2012). As a well-known example, benefit of utilizinginternet received special attention within construction projects inwhich members of one project team were located in differentgeographical areas (Becerik-Gerber et al., 2012; Chen andMessner, 2010; Joseph, 2005; Nayak and Taylor, 2009;Peansupap, 2012; Vorakulpipat et al., 2010).

In this regard, the industry has witnessed the emergence ofGVETs known as effective, efficient, and innovative serviceproviders for construction organizations. The relevant studies innon-construction industry sector, overwhelmingly recommendVirtual Teams (VTs) due to many advantages they bring about forthe organizations. On the other hand, in response to the inevitableglobalization trend, industries somehow are obliged to embark on

1102 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

using VTs. They are an available remedy to overcome the fiercecompetitive globalized business atmosphere (Algesheimer et al.,2011; Chen and Messner, 2010; Yacine, 2007). On top of that,forecasts and predictions by the experts, practitioners andgovernmental institutes from many countries show an increasingtrend for using VTs as a part of future organizations' structure(Chang, 2011; Duarte and Snyder, 2006; Mukherjee et al., 2012).

However, there are also some drawbacks to VTs. Almost themajor parts of literatures widely argue that any kind of virtualworking faces some particular challenges. Should the chal-lenges not managed properly, the teams working virtually havethe potential for presenting lower performance or even higherrisks than that of the traditional ones.

It is not an overstatement if one claims that positive outcome ofany virtual team working heavily relies on addressing the issuesand resolving the challenges beforehand. Any negligence inrecognizing, addressing and taking appropriate measures toresolve the inherent challenges will jeopardize the efforts andinvestments by any organization to adopt virtual teams in anyselected form (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh, 2003; Chang,2011; Gignac, 2005; Zenun et al., 2007). Therefore, any kind ofeffective implementation of engineering teamwork throughGVETs requires a deeper understanding and identification of thevarious critical factors that may not be found or be as important intraditional teams. There are evidences showing that around 50%of unsuccessful projects with VTs are the results of the manager'sincompetency at working with virtual teams (Schweitzer andDuxbury, 2010).

It is inferred that the literature regards the in-detail appreciationof different factors affecting virtual team working as a perquisitefor success. Nevertheless, it is still believed that research onutilizing virtual working in general and specifically in constructionindustry is not mature enough for providing the industry withnecessary information (Algesheimer et al., 2011; Booth, 2011;Martins and Schilpzand, 2011; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010;Van Pelt, 2010). As the result, there is a need for further researchin the area for determining all the unknown aspects of virtual teamworking in the industry by synthesizing the fragmented results ofprevious studies (Martins and Schilpzand, 2011) and spotting thegaps of knowledge and overlooked areas for identifying the trendsfor future studies. Otherwise, the considerable benefits virtual teaworking paradigm is able to offer organizations will be curbed bythe lack of knowledge in the area (Joseph, 2005; Zhang et al.,2008). In addition, there have been concerns about the existingknowledge regarding the fact that many relevant studies haveutilized student projects and laboratory methods (Schweitzer andDuxbury, 2010). On top of that, the few practical case studiesavailable in construction projects have exploited the data fromlarge US companies or countries other than Australia. Further-more, when it comes to addressing the abovementioned problemsin countries other than US such as Australia it gets much worse.Furthermore, when criteria are narrowed down within theAustralian construction industry context, there is no evidence ofany seminal work undertaken. To pinpoint these facts, we willpresent discussion in the following sections of the paper, pointingout that on the one hand, one could find plausible evidencesadvocating the necessity of implementing GVETs in the

Australian construction industry. On the other hand, the existingliterature contends that reliance on the results of studies conductedin other industries or other parts of the world does not seem to be ascientific approach to address the matter for Australian construc-tion context.

It seems that the gaps in the knowledge about GVETs inAustralian construction industry and the vagueness about currentpotential for companies to harness the new method would deprivethe Australian companies of the possible benefits. The lack ofappreciation for the concept would deter the scholars fromcarrying out related in-depth research on various aspects of thatissue as well. Even if found, the existing information offragmented case studies in the Australian construction contextwill not enable the researches and practitioners of achievingfurther useful information of the matter.

Based on the above problem statement, firstly this paper aimsto highlight the necessities of future research on the subject. Asthe study approach towards spotting the areas suffering from lackof knowledge, we regard utilizing a GVET in a constructionproject as an isolated project showing all the relevant necessitiesand corresponding phases of managing a project. The study willbuild all the following discussions on the foregoing approach.Secondly, the paper will present state of the art research on virtualteam working with a bias towards clarifying the areas ofknowledge necessary for managing the virtual teams effectively.Having spotted the corresponding gaps of knowledge in theAustralian construction context, the study will then provideguidelines for determining fertile grounds of research in all arenaspertinent to virtual team working management.

The outcome of the research will contribute to the literature byidentifying the fundamental grounds and issues of managingprojects utilizing GVETs within the Australian constructionindustry. The paper will also expand on the extant knowledge ofGVETs in global construction context by highlighting the relevantissues in different phases of a GVET project. Consequently, theresults will show the necessity of research on the subjects underquestion in construction.

2. Main objectives of the paper

Briefly, the aim of the paper is to define grounds for furtherresearch on adopting GVETs within the Australian constructionindustry. We follow the defined aim by spotting the gaps in areasof knowledge that are necessary for managing a project havinga GVET as the team. Hence, the paper aims at preventingpractitioners and scholars in Australia suffering from a lack ofappreciation in the field of managing projects with GVETs in aconstruction context. To achieve the abovementioned aim, thepaper defines its focus to fulfill the following objectives:

1- Determining all the previously known issues of managingGVETs in different phases of the lifecycle based on the extantliterature.

2- Exploring the state of the art knowledge regarding adoptingGVETs within the projects.

1103M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

3- Providing discussions based on the literature to show that theexisting literature from other industries and other countries arenot necessarily applicable to Australian construction industry.

4- Drawing up an agenda for setting out grounds of necessaryresearch on GVETs implementation within the Australianconstruction industry.

5- Providing scholars with seminal research references to existingstudies on managing GVETS.

3. Methodology

Based on the research objective defined for the paper, theauthors were to produce an updated snapshot of the existingknowledge relevant to managing GVETs within industries.Drawing upon the works of Hertel et al. (2005), we regardedmanaging a GVET as the management of an isolated project withthe relevant lifecycle and all the managerial issues. This way wehighlighted those areas of knowledge that a project manager shouldprove competence to deal with a GVET effectively. The approachfollowed for the purpose of research could be titled as anexhaustive review with selective criterion (Cooper, 1988;Randolph, 2009). It also should be mentioned that our literaturereview was conducted based on the focus approach according tothe taxonomy of literature reviews by Cooper (1988). It means thatour literature review will focus on outcomes of the previousresearch. Hence, paying attention to methodologies of the previousstudies is not the aim of this paper. Our further discussions will bebuilt on the findings of our literature review within each of theareas of the knowledge necessary for managing a GVET as anisolated project during its lifecycle.

4. Concepts, terminology and definitions

To have the topic for our literature searchwe had to embark on apreliminary search on relevant databases (Neuman, 2006). A quickscan of the titles of well-knownworks revealed the fact that there isno unique widely accepted label for teams working virtuallyamong the extant published work. Therefore, to gain a better focuson the subject under question within different segments of theindustry we commenced a historical review (Neuman, 2006) tofind out how the concept and terminology has been developed andlabeled during the years. Concisely, it seems that no singleresearcher has the title of the inventor of the virtual teams. Inaddition, virtual teams have not been built on a specific theory ormodel designed specifically for them. Our historic review showedthat the concept and related methods are fostered through anevolutionary process. Their rapid proliferation is the outcome of acombination of driving forces including the inevitable necessity forchanges dictated from the industry and the advancements withinthe ICTs. Hence, the concepts related to VTs are still evolving andthe terminology has not been fixed yet (Camarinha-Matos et al.,2005; Martins and Schilpzand, 2011; Powell et al., 2004). As aresult of the ever evolving concept of VTs, there is not even onecommon definition for the virtual teams which has been agreedupon by the researchers (Chen and Messner, 2010; Martins andSchilpzand, 2011; Mawanda, 2012; Schweitzer and Duxbury,2010). Reviewing the literature reveals that the number of available

definitions nearly equals the number of researchers presenting thedefinitions. In this regard, one comes across three approachestowards defining virtual teams:

• Those who have presented a clear definition (Chen andMessner, 2010; Chinowsky and Rojas, 2002; Fuller et al., 2012)

• Researchers who have distinguished virtual teams bydefining them as team works which demonstrate somespecific attributes (Bal and Teo, 2000; Hertel et al., 2005;Kirkman et al., 2002)

• Some researchers are challenging the traditional concept ofvirtual teams as the contrast of the conventional teams. Theymaintain that team working in today's environment neces-sitates some level of virtual working (Gibson and Gibbs,2006) and it is the matter of dimensions and the degree ofworking virtual that enables us to label teams (Mukherjee etal., 2012; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010)

Agreeing with the third category of definitions and based onthe fact that all the teams are to some extent virtual these days,we define the term of GVETs for this paper as:

Groups of geographically, organizationally and/or timedispersed intelligent workers with different skills and indifferent positions of the hierarchy heavily relied on ICTs toaccomplish engineering tasks which for all are heldaccountable.

For the purpose of our exhaustive to find the relevant literature,we defined the abovementioned definition as the corner stone. Weconsidered any kind of organizational structure or working teammeeting the attributes described in the above definition as a GVET.

It is noteworthy to mention that a major part of the knowledgeconcerning virtual team working comes from sectors of theindustry with no relationship with construction or even engineer-ing tasks. Therefore, to prevent any confusion, throughout thepaper, we will use the term VT for any kind of virtual teams in thegeneric industry and GVET explicitly for the construction context.Hence, the definition considered for VTs is similar to that ofGVETs except for the fact that they are not responsible forcompleting engineering tasks and the environment of workingcould include all the industries. Put it another way, GVET is underthe broad umbrella of VTs since it is a kind of virtual team butconsidered for completing engineering tasks within the construc-tion industry. Hence, the terms VT is applicable to any kind ofvirtual team working within different industries.

The confusion that exists in the literature in presenting atheoretical definition for VTs is obvious since there are differenthypothesis and even many approaches for determining whether ateam could be assumed as a virtual team. It is due to the lack ofappreciation on the dimensions associated with the virtuality of ateam. The conceptual definition is the base of further research anddiscussions on the subject. Therefore, any ambiguity in this areacould directly end up in the vagueness of all issues regardingVTs. Researchers have endeavored to resolve the issue(Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010) in other disciplines byinvestigating the directions and variables of virtuality. However,when it comes to construction industry, research on succinctly

1104 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

determination of all the dimensions contributing to the virtualityof teams seems necessary. Since, investigating any correlationbetween the attributes of a GVET and the related variables relieson incorporating the structure of the GVET in terms of virtuality.

5. Literature search strategy

There are many different databases available for searching andit is important that the appropriate databases are searched,depending on the objective and topic of the paper (Green et al.,2006). In addition, some resources in management relateddisciplines have conducted their literature reviews based one-journals and e-databases searches (Craighead and Meredith,2008) including some seminal works about VTs (Gibson andGibbs, 2006; Powell et al., 2004; Schiller andMandviwalla, 2007).Therefore, we commenced our preliminary search by utilizingbasic keywords such as “virtual teams”. Our search covereddatabases including Emerald, ASCE, Science-direct, Compendex,EBSCO, Elsevier, and ABI/INFORM, ISI web of science, andGoogle-Scholar, Private bibliographic databases such as http://www.scoop.it/t/virtual-r-d-teams, specialized databases such asConstruction Industry Institutes (CII) website, databases containingthe published works from Australia such as IBISWord, Informit,and Trove.

The second phase of our search entailed reviewing theabstracts of the papers found during the first phase. In accordanceto the work by Martins and Schilpzand (2011), our preliminaryresults revealed that researchers have utilized different labels forentities possessing the attributes mentioned in our definition forvirtual teams. We included the set of labels in Martins andSchilpzand (2011) work, but our bias towards finding projectmanagement and construction industry related knowledge areasmade our list of labels different from the foregoing study.Therefore, the list we utilized for literature search included manylabels such as Global Virtual Team (Maynard et al., 2012;McDonough et al., 2001; Prasad and Akhilesh, 2002; Sarker etal., 2011), Global Engineering Network (GEN)/Workforce (DiMarco et al., 2010; Messner et al., 2007; Yufeng et al., 2008;Zhang et al., 2008), Global Virtual Engineering Team (GVET)(Chen and Messner, 2010; Joseph, 2005), virtual project/designteam (Horii et al., 2005; Reed and Knight, 2010), GlobalOutsourcing of Engineering Services (Bryant, 2006; Hira, 2003;Nayak and Taylor, 2009; Salunke, 2011), Low Cost EngineeringCentres (LCEC) (deVilliers and Pretorius, 2008). The result ofthis phase was finding 307 published works, which containedinformation about managing virtual teams and relevant matters inaccordance with our definition. The published works where fromvery broad areas of knowledge and disciplines includingpublications concerning management discipline, human resources,networking and virtual organizations, communications and IT,project management, team performance, and construction industry.Eventually, 216 references from 307 were picked. The selectedworks were those that presented an objective reasonably associatedat least with one aspect of virtual team working in projects.

The third phase of the search was screening out the foundresearch and reading bibliographic sections. To meet ourobjective concerning presenting state of the art knowledge on

the subject, the stage entailed imposing the criteria for selectingonly the works published between years 2000 to mid-2012 thatresulted in a group comprised of 206 published works withsubjects rationally relevant to an aspect of virtual team workingin projects and within an industry. As the result, in analyzingthe information we eventually exploited an almost comprehen-sive source consisting most of the seminal works conducted onthe subject of VTs in all segments of the industry. The varietyof the resources found is evident from the list of references ofthe paper since the cited works makes up for less than half ofthe resources found during the search phase.

6. The approach to define the necessary knowledge formanaging a GVET

Managing any team requires possessing different managementknowledge and skills during the course of the projects' lifecycleand a GVET is no exception. Presumably, spotting thecorresponding necessary knowledge for managing GVETs inconstruction industry seems more feasible if we consider a basicframework for highlighting the different issues relevant for GVETmanagement as the first step for our investigation. Likewise,previous studies in the relevant literature have deployed variousapproaches. As examples, utilizing the method introduced byPowell et al. (2004) that divided the topics related to VTs intothree main categories namely teams inputs, outputs, and processes(Schiller and Mandviwalla, 2007) is very common within theliterature. As a recent example, Martins and Schilpzand (2011)utilized the Input–Mediator–Output–input (IMOI) model ofteams for organizing their discussions.

Since our context concerns construction projects, authorscontended that selecting an approach drawing upon a premise,which divides the necessary knowledge of managing a GVETbased on successive phases of delivering projects might serve ourobjectives much more effectively than other methods such asinputs, outputs, and processes. simplifying the work by Hertelet al. (2005) which divided the key activities for managing avirtual team into 5 phases, authors assumed managing a GVET ina construction project as an isolated project with activitiescategorized in three main phases. The three phases cover all thenecessary general managerial procedures and knowledge from theearly stages of considering implementing a GVET as opposed to aco-located one, continuing until the end of the project when theproject manager should decide the future of the team members.Our frameworkwill cover all the process groups a project managerought to get competency similar to the process groups introducedby project management seminal resources (Project Management,2008).

7. Virtual teams necessary management knowledge

Based on the introduced model, we divided the necessaryknowledge for managing a GVET project into three consec-utive generic phases that include, Initiating, Executing/Performance managing/Team development, and closing inalignment with the project management process groupsdefined by Project Management, I. (2008) and with some

1105M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

input from the work by Hertel et al. (2005). We believe that formanaging GVET projects, identifying and assessing thenecessary key knowledge areas throughout the projectlifecycle is a perquisite for any Manager. Fig. 1 illustrates thegeneric phases of the lifecycle and corresponding knowledgeareas discussed in the paper.

The following knowledge areas have been discovered withinthe literature as the most salient necessary knowledge for adoptingGVETs. Therefore, the researchers in construction managementfield should consider these areas as the entry point for introducingthe grounds of research about GVETs project management.

7.1. Initiating phase

This phase is the one, in which the project manager makes thedecision for adopting GVETs in the project or not. The ProjectManager should make this decision by utmost caution and beingfully aware of all the conditions and risks of GVETs. Completeawareness of the following areas during the preparation/planningphase of implementing GVETs in a construction project is aperquisite for embarking on implementing the method (Chinowskyand Rojas, 2002). Logic is derived only after having enoughinformation that enables an accurate decision. The preparationactivities are of crucial importance for future performance of anyvirtual team and resolving their inherited issues (Maynard et al.,2012).

7.1.1. Comparing advantages and disadvantages of adoptingGVETs

Many items are the driving forces behind the adoptionand increasing popularity of VTs within different industries(Camarinha-Matos et al., 2005; Gibson and Gibbs, 2006; Hertel etal., 2005). The positive points mentioned, included the ability ofVTs in overcoming geographical and time boundaries (Cascio and

Fig. 1. Key knowledge areas for implementing

Shurygailo, 2003; Fuller et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2004); profitsdue to lower wages (Hunsaker and Hunsaker, 2008); the cut ofoffice space costs, and decreased travel expenses (Cascio andShurygailo, 2003; McDonough et al., 2001; Schweitzer andDuxbury, 2010); improved productivity (Chen and Messner,2010; Chinowsky and Rojas, 2002); timing effectiveness andhigher response speed (Camarinha-Matos et al., 2005; Gressgård,2011), and enhancing quality aspects of the work (Gignac, 2005).Above all, the necessity to remain competitive in the fierceglobalized business environment is one of the other aspects inwhich virtual teams can facilitate companies (Booth, 2011;Mawanda, 2012; Mukherjee et al., 2012). In addition, they havestructures that are more flexible and agile in their processes(Algesheimer et al., 2011; Hunsaker and Hunsaker, 2008; Piccoliet al., 2004; Sole and Edmondson, 2002). Since they have accessto a comprehensive pool of skilled personnel with a variety ofqualifications scattered all over the world (Kirkman et al., 2002)resulting in better creativity and more innovations (Gibson andVermeulen, 2003). As good evidence, Ebrahim et al. (2009) inTable 3 of their paper presented a collection of many referencesmentioning the driving forces behind the increasing implementa-tion of virtual teams. Even some studies opined that implementingVTs for an organization could mean shifting from failure tosuccess (Duarte and Snyder, 2006). Based on the abovementionedbenefits, it seems that GVETs are capable of bringing about manybenefits to organizations including the main goals of anyconstruction project, namely matters related to cost, time, andquality.

Conversely, any negligence in recognizing, addressing andtaking appropriate measures to resolve the inherent challenges ofany VT will jeopardize the efforts and investments by anyorganization to adopt them (Ebrahim et al., 2009;Mukherjee et al.,2012). The challenges in implementing the VTs could be regardedas the main disadvantages of utilizing them, which might end up

a GVET throughout the project lifecycle.

1106 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

with the project manager in having teams with less effectivenessand facing much more unknown risks than their conventionalcounterparts (Chen and Messner, 2010; Chinowsky and Rojas,2002). Another drawback is the high initial costs for ICTs,necessary trainings, organizational changes, and the large amountof efforts necessary for migration to a GVET from a conventionalmodel that could eclipse the potential benefits (Camarinha-Matoset al., 2005; Ebrahim et al., 2009; Hertel et al., 2005). There arealso reservations about the lower productivity of virtual teams incomparison to co-locate ones (Duarte and Snyder, 2006; Monalisaet al., 2008) due to VTs weaknesses in changing information(Powell et al., 2004). In this regard, Nemiro (2002) stated that VTsare not able to replace the traditional teams and are only capable ofperforming some specific tasks in some special circumstanceswhich should be selected mindfully.

It is obvious that comparing the generic advantages anddisadvantages of VTs is a matter of debate with no widespreadagreement. The problem even applies to sectors of the industrywith an acceptable volume of research on VTs (Martins et al.,2004; Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). Construction industryseverely suffers from the lack of relevant studies on the topic.Nevertheless, we strongly hold the view that any conclusionconcerning comparing the advantages/disadvantages of GVETs inAustralian construction projects is a matter of specific localconditions governing the projects. Hence, results of the researchesconducted out of Australia and in other disciplines could not bereflective of the specific conditions for GVETs in Australianconstruction projects.

7.1.2. ICTs infrastructureBased on researches about the definition of virtual teams, one

of the main attributes of the virtual teams that make them trulydistinctive from conventional ones is the heavy reliance on theICTs. It is not overstated that virtual teams cannot work and willhave no existence excluding ICTs from the scene (Booth, 2011;LaLonde, 2011; Peansupap, 2012; Peters and Manz, 2007). Evenmany studies have regarded the degree of dependence on ICTs asan index for determining the degree of virtuality of VTs (Gibsonand Gibbs, 2006). Although some studies have argued that thedegree of reliance of VTs on ICTs is a controversial matter amongscholars (Curseu et al., 2008), and more than being a characteristicfor VTs, heavy reliance on ICTs is one of the consequences ofworking in virtual environment for teams (Schweitzer andDuxbury, 2010). Nevertheless, the fast pace of technology towardsbetter ICTs has helped GVETs in numerous forms (Kirkman et al.,2004; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001; Rezgui, 2001), but heavydependency of virtual teams to ICTs for communications (Booth,2011) makes them extremely vulnerable to any problem withregard to infrastructure. In addition, decreased quality ofcommunications via ICTs is another concern regarding VTs(Hertel et al., 2005). Hence, the potential of a company in terms ofits ability to provide necessary communication technologies whenconsidering adopting GVETs in any stage is of crucial importance.Therefore, the awareness of the Project Manager of the state ofICTs in the organization should be considered as a very influentialelement. The case is more important for construction industrysince many construction projects are supposed to be executed in

remote areas with less facilities and more ICT disruptions. Inaddition, some of themembers of GVETsmight be based in placeswith less developed ICT infrastructure. All the above mentionedissues should be taken into account when considering embarkingon utilizing GVETs. In addition, construction is an industry withheavy reliance on information exchange and necessary commu-nications (Vorakulpipat et al., 2010). Studies also highlight thedirect effect of ICTs on the performance of VTs (Martins et al.,2004). On top of that, choosing the right ICTs tool for the specificcommunication goals is also another important factor in thesuccess of GVETs (Karoui et al., 2010). Therefore, there is anecessity for further investigation into different patterns ofinformation in construction projects, the types of knowledgenecessary to be exchanged, and the best channels in terms of ICTstools for GVETs.

7.1.3. Team designing (set goals/team structure/member selection)Setting the goals for adopting GVETs and selecting the

appropriate structure of the team for defined goals are among thefactors with an effect on GVETs outcomes. Satisfying all theabove requirements has a direct effect on the success of any VT(Powell et al., 2004). In this regard, one of the initial steps in theadoption of a VT is the determination of the most appropriatestructure for achieving the goals defined beforehand (Abuelmaattiand Rezgui, 2008; Harvey et al., 2004; Hertel et al., 2005;Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). Based on the expectations fromthe VTs, the Project Manager should determine the goals of thevirtual team perfectly clear, because defining the common goalsaccurately has a direct effect on the success of VTs (Bal and Teo,2001). In addition, noting that virtual teams are not theappropriate structure for any kind of goal is important (Cascioand Shurygailo, 2003; Konradt and Hertel, 2002; Nemiro, 2002).Different types of tasks dictate adopting teams with differentstructures (Hertel et al., 2005). Hence, adopting the GVET withappropriate structure for achieving predetermined goals is acrucial step and requires great care. Enlightening the members asto the philosophy behind the team and its goals (Bal and Teo,2001; Hertel et al., 2005; Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004) isalso a next necessary step in having an effective virtual team.Nevertheless, the concept of the structure of the team is also amatter of controversy and the dimensions defining the structureof a team have yet to be agreed upon (Gibson and Gibbs, 2006;Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). On top of that, the correlationbetween the structure of team and its effectiveness suffers fromlack of appreciation. Above all, the conceptual definition ofeffectiveness for GVETs is also debatable (Schweitzer andDuxbury, 2010).

Apart from other dimensions of GVETs' structures, membersare the cornerstone of success for any team (Jones et al., 2000).The choice of appropriate team members could distinguish asuccessful virtual team from an unsuccessful one (Ebrahim et al.,2009; Goodbody, 2005) and is one of the challenging stages offorming a VT (Harvey et al., 2004). The required technicalknowledge of team members totally depends on the goals definedfor the team and finding the right person in accordance to thedefined criterion is one of the project manager vital tasks(Hunsaker and Hunsaker, 2008). However, due to the disparity

1107M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

between the members and having ICTs as the main mediumbetween co-workers of the team, there are some other skills thatshould be possessed by virtual team members (Bellamy et al.,2005; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Hertel et al., 2005; Salas et al.,2000) although some studies argue about the dominance ofnon-technical skills issues in comparison to task-related skills inselecting VT members (D'Souza and Colarelli, 2010). There isalso some research for ascertaining the essential attributes of VTteam members regarding the socio-emotional characteristics ofmembers in disciplines other than construction along with somearguments over the preferences of some cultures over othercultures in terms of effectiveness in virtual teams. In addition, thetype for effect of the diversity of team members on theeffectiveness of the team is still unclear (Hertel et al., 2005). Onthe other hand, a study in construction industry mandated thatteam members would experience some alternations in their skillsand character as the result of utilizing ICTs playing the role ofmain mediums during the life-cycle of the team (Bellamy et al.,2005).

The extant literatures in construction industry have paid almostno attention to the relationships between the structures of theGVET, and the goals defined. Even the theoretical definitions andvariables affecting the abovementioned items are not succinctenough for making decisions on the related issues. On the otherhand, structure of the team is not completely up to the discretion ofthe manager. The structure and degree of virtuality are under theinfluence of many other factors such as the location and personalattributes of some key members of the team which working withthem is vital for the goals defined. As the results of all aboveindicate, designing an effective GVET is the outcome of ananalysis process, which is under the influence of some of theabovementioned variables such as the goals defined, and thecharacteristics of key team members. On top of that, As far as itconcerns selecting the GVET members, the issue seems to be alocal matter. Logically, ordinary members of the GVETs forAustralian construction industry will come from Asia, India, orMiddle East. Therefore, research should be focused on analyzingthe challenges occurring between the cultures, standards,construction codes, occupational regulations, and relevant prob-lems between skilled knowledge workers from these areas andAustralian practitioners. Above all, design of the GVETwill affectall the decisions of the manager later during the lifecycle of theteam. Therefore, research should introduce the conceptualdefinition of GVETs design and the factors associated with itsuch as the attributes of the members, the objectives defined, thedegree of virtuality of the GVETs, and other affecting factors.

7.2. Executing/performance management/development of GVET

The following items represent the general areas of knowledgenecessary for a Project Manager during the course of operation ofa GVET.

7.2.1. LeadershipMatters regarding the leadership of virtual teams suffer from

vagueness in many grounds. Maybe the salient reason is theexisting controversy over the phenomenon of leadership in general

management and specially managing projects (Brodbeck, 2001;Toor and ofori, 2008) as one can find many different viewpointsand theories in this respect. In retrospect, some researchersmaintain that leadership has a crucial effect on effectiveness ofVTs (Jarvenpaa and Tanriverdi, 2003; Kayworth and Leidner,2002) and is even one of the most challenging issue of managingVTs (Bal and Teo, 2001; Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel et al.,2005;Malhotra et al., 2007). In contrast, a recent study showed thatVTs performance is not directly affected by the type leader-member relationship in virtual teams (Goh, 2010). Nevertheless,generally some researchers argue that direct autonomous control-ling methods are not effective for virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2005;Powell et al., 2004). In addition, the existing literature emphasizeson the specific necessary attributes that VT leaders shoulddemonstrate as an effective team leader (Bal and Teo, 2001). Ontop of that, the most effective leadership strategy appropriate forVTs has been studied by many researchers (Malhotra et al., 2007;Van Pelt, 2010) while it is still a matter of debate (Mawanda, 2012;Mukherjee et al., 2012). There could be found many contradictingsuggested leadership approaches for VTs including leadership bymonitoring the personnel by ICTs, self-managing strategy, andmanaging by using objective-feedback (Hertel et al., 2005).Although some studies have addressed leadership for developinga framework for managing GVETs in construction industry (Chenand Messner, 2010; Chinowsky and Rojas, 2002), we argue thatthe knowledge onGVETs leadership inAustralian context is still inneed of further research. Some of the issues in need of addressingby the researchers in Australia include determining whether thereare substantial differences between the appropriate leadershipstrategies for GVETs in comparison to conventional teams in anAustralian construction context. Moreover, the necessary leader-ship attributes and criteria for selecting the Manager of GVETsshould be identified. Above all, the most effective leadershipstrategy for managing a GVET by taking into account all theaffecting conditions in Australian construction industry is anecessary ground for further research. In accordance to ourassumption regarding the degree of virtuality, we strongly hold theview that researchers should develop correlations between themostappropriate leadership strategy and the design of the GVET.

7.2.2. Building trustFrom all the issues, building trust among the members is the

area of knowledgewe can assume as themost frequently addressedissue of VTs in existing researches. A number of studies havehighlighted how trust is the factor with a noticeable effect on theperformance of VTs members (Henttonen and Blomqvist, 2005;Khan, 2012; Malhotra et al., 2007). Interestingly, based onlongitudinal studies, the mechanism of development of trustamong GVETs members and its influence on their performancealters during the lifecycle of a team (Kanawattanachai and Yoo,2002) and also depends on variables such as the culturalbackground of team members (Yusof and Zakaria, 2012). Evensome studies claimed that effectiveness degree of trust on theperformance of GVETs is not constant and changes based on theconditions (Jarvenpaa et al., 2004). Research has it that, almost allthe foregoing studies are from industries other than constructionand many are based on data from student projects. Therefore, one

1108 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

of the main elements of managing GVETs in construction is stillunder ambiguity. Hence, the necessity of conducting furtherresearch regarding the obvious matters below. The real importanceand effectiveness of trust in GVETs effectiveness and performancein construction context should be investigated. There is partialconscience among the researchers regarding the positive impactsof trust on performance of GVETs (Martins and Schilpzand,2011). However, some studies doubted if there is a significantcorrelation between the foregoing variables (Jarvenpaa et al.,2004). Developing a framework for best practices of building trustamong the members of GVETs in construction industry indifferent phases of the project lifecycle is another issue thatneeds further research. Elicitation of the alternation of trustmechanisms during the lifecycle of a GVET in constructioncontext and the main factors affecting forming the trust betweenthe members and the leader with members in GVETs requiresmore attention from Australian academia.

7.2.3. CommunicationsResearches show that GVETs struggle to coordinate their

work because of the loss of time on trying to accurately interpretcommunication and coordinate activities (Maynard et al., 2012).Briefly, communication is one of the great challenges VTs face.Even if they are equipped with the most advances technologicaltools and devices (Duarte and Snyder, 2006; Goodbody, 2005;Lin et al., 2008; Rosen et al., 2007; Walvoord et al., 2008).Although the communication device namely the type of ICTsused has a great effect on the richness of the knowledge sharedbetween the team members (Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2012).Another issue brought up by the extant literature is that eachproject sets patterns of its own and selects specific communica-tion tools for developing communications. Interestingly, researchshowed that once established, changing the pattern and toolstakes a lot of effort. Therefore, laying down appropriate rules,strategies and selecting appropriate devices for communication atinitial stages is vital for the efficacy of the GVET (Huysman et al.,2003;Martins and Schilpzand, 2011). Of the challenges related tocommunications is the question whether it's necessary toorganize face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the GVET orperiodically. Some research emphasizes that face-to-face meet-ings can enhance the communications and trust (Pauleen, 2003).In addition, it lessens the communication difficulties due to thedistance between the team members (Kayworth and Leidner,2000; Ramesh and Dennis, 2002). In general, the major part ofresearch believes in the positive effect of face-to-face meetingsphysically or via video-conferences on general efficiency ofGVETs (Martins and Schilpzand, 2011). Conversely, someresearches mandate the idea that face-to-face meetings highlightthe differences between the members and adversely affects thequality of communication between team members (Bjørn andNgwenyama, 2009). On the other hand, studies also emphasizethat non-job-related or social communications between membersof the GVETs is one of the factors that Managers should considerfor forming any VT (Hertel et al., 2005; Martins and Schilpzand,2011). These sorts of communications have critical influence onthe effectiveness of the virtual teams (Lin et al., 2008; Shin, 2005)particularly when it comes to building the cohesion of the team

(Powell et al., 2004). Interestingly, one of the methods offostering non-job-related relationships between the members inthe literature is mentioned as holding face-to-face meetings indifferent stages of team creation (Cascio and Shurygailo, 2003;Goodbody, 2005; Mittleman et al., 2000) along with chattingsessions and utilizing humor in contacts between co-workers in aGVETs (Kayworth and Leidner, 2002). In summary, construc-tion is as an information and communication dependent industry(Rezgui, 2001; Vorakulpipat et al., 2010; Yacine, 2007). Theamount of information generated and exchanged during a projectlifetime is substantial. Thus, it is of vital importance that thecommunications in GVETs are managed as efficiently as possible(McIntosh and Sloan, 2001). Hence, we argue that future researchon the following matters would contribute noticeably to theknowledge about GVETs in the construction industry. Develop-ing a framework for the best practices of improving communi-cation between GVETs members both in formal and non-job-related context within construction industry seems necessary. Inaddition, investigating the most appropriate tools and mediumsfor different necessary communications will provide ProjectManagers with information they require. Testing the hypothesisregarding the crucial effects of non-job-related communicationsbetween the members of GVETs and the on the performance ofthe team, exploring the change of communication patterns duringthe lifecycle of a GVET in a construction project, ascertaining themain barriers of developing effective communications amongGVET members in construction project is also good ground forresearchers. An exploration of factors affecting the effectivenessof communications in GVETs such as cultural differences alsocontributes to the existing knowledge.

7.2.4. Team composition issuesPeople from very different backgrounds and experiences bring

with themselves different behaviors, work cultures ethics, routingsand assumptions about the organization, and team working(Kayworth and Leidner, 2002; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006;Powell et al., 2004). Studies argue that team composition issueshave a dramatic effect on the function and outcome of any virtualteam and should be considered seriously, when it comes to designor manage a virtual team (Connaughton and Shuffler, 2007;Hitson, 2008; Piccoli et al., 2004; Zimmermann, 2011). Based onthe vital importance of these items, some authors have conductedexplicit researches to find out the effect of matters regardingcultural diversity on virtual teams and determining the culturalaspects with an influence on the performance of teams (Dekkeret al., 2008; Hartenian, 2003; Harvey et al., 2004; Prasad andAkhilesh, 2002; Trent, 2003; Zimmermann, 2011). In this regard,dimensions associated with cultural diversity have been describedby different hypothesis. Cultural related factors are believed tohave the main influence on team composition, but other attributessuch as difference in functional background and team size areother factors which could affect team composition as well (Duarteand Snyder, 2006; Goodbody, 2005). Some studies also argue thatProjectManager should address the cultural issues of virtual teamsby selecting members who are able to work independently andnegotiate cultural differences successfully (D'Souza and Colarelli,2010; Harvey et al., 2004). Nevertheless, we would argue that

1109M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

cultural differences might be a source of problem, but the virtualenvironment and dependence of relationships on ICTs act as adouble-edged sword. Namely, in some aspects, ICTs alleviate theproblem of cultural differences. Therefore, cultural diversity is aless effective factor in GVETs in comparison to their co-locatedcounterparts. Two other main issues mentioned in the literature asproblematic aspects of GVETs are matters related to teamcohesiveness (Martins and Schilpzand, 2011; Powell et al.,2004) and team identity (Hertel et al., 2005; O'Leary andMortensen, 2011; Shapiro et al., 2002), which suffer fromdisagreement between the researchers. The type of influencevirtuality of the team has, on these variables and the effect theyhave on the performance of the GVET is still not clear. All thementioned studies and articles are based on the data fromdisciplines and locations not appropriate for generalizing toAustralian construction industry. As a result of all the above, thefollowing items would make up the agenda for future researchconcerning the GVETs composition dimensions issues within theAustralian construction context. Defining the main dimensions ofculture with an effect on GVETs performance, namely recogniz-ing the kinds of cultures that are compatible and the ones that areincompatible, developing a set of best practices and strategies tofacilitate resolving the cultural diversities in GVETs anddeveloping a framework for addressing the conflicts in GVETsdefines the main factors. These [factors] are associated withconflict eruption, defining if specific working conditions ofGVETs alleviate resolving the problems of cultural diversity orvisa-versa. In this case, determining the best practices for projectmanagers to foster positive points and eliminate adverse effectswould facilitate managing GVETs for construction projectmanagers. Moreover, determining the factors affecting thecohesiveness and identification of a GVET along with exploringthe effect they have over the efficiency of the GVET is anotherarea for research in construction context.

7.2.5. Legal and contractual issuesTo enable any organization of exploiting virtual teams

effectively, a number of contracts and agreements addressinglegal issues need to be in place beforehand (Arenas et al., 2008).The minimum of different types of legal documents necessaryentail employment contracts of members; the supplier contract,ICTs infrastructure providers' contracts; stakeholders' licenses;business contracts; and application provider contract (Camarinha-Matos and Oliveira, 2007; Shelbourn et al., 2005). In addition, theproblems with liability sharing and distribution, copyrightregulations would be a source of problems for virtual teamProjectManagers (Abuelmaatti and Rezgui, 2008). As an obviousexample, one of the main concerns is the legal personality of thevirtual team. Due to the specific characteristics of virtual teams,many legal systems perceive the virtual teams as a formula thathas no nationality and no legal personality. In all of the types ofthe contracts and agreements necessary for the virtual teams,many different clauses need to be included to enable the contractsto be suitable from many business and legal perspectives. It getsworse whenwe know that many SME companies do not have anylegal representatives increasing the risks of utilizing virtual teamsin their projects (Camarinha-Matos et al., 2005). In general,

research on the legal matters of GVETs is rare. Specifically, whenit comes to the construction industry with the potential for manydisputes the grounds for further research becomes more obvious.The Construction industry severely suffers from the lack ofresearch in this field in many directions. As an example, liabilitiesfor quality of drawings, legal admissibility of electronicsignatures (Yacine, 2007) has been addressed in few studies.Although one might come across some examples of legaldocuments in this regard. Therefore, we believe that the fertilegrounds for research in this regard, includes many issues as thefollowing items demonstrates: defining the main legal issuesaffecting the operation of GVETs in construction industry indifferent phases of the work; developing a framework for bestpractices in order to address the legal problems in GVETsoperation for project managers; determining the best strategies forresolving the issues stemmed from people located in differentcountries far from the manager of the team; preparing samplecontracts covering all the legal issues of relationships betweendifferent parties involved in a GVETs project.

7.2.6. Measuring performance/supervision strategyMissing an appropriate tool for measuring performance and

exercising supervision would be among one of the challengesorganizations face when adopting virtual teams (Bell andKozlowski, 2002; Camarinha-Matos et al., 2005; Haywood,1998; Piccoli et al., 2004). Some studies stated that supervisorymethods based on empowerment of the team would facilitateincreasing the performance of VTs (Kirkman et al., 2004;Walvoord et al., 2008). Other studies show that teams with higherperformances could be recognized by their level of dedication toteam goals; cohesiveness among team members; demonstratingequilibrium between respect and unity for individual differences(Ebrahim et al., 2009). Another element in the index ofperformance by VTs could be regarded as customer satisfaction(Kirkman et al., 2004). Studies have mentioned some otherperformance evaluation tools for VTs such as decision quality, thenumber of ideas that emerge from the team, and the time that theteam spends on making a decision (Piccoli et al., 2004; Powellet al., 2004). It seems that the tools introduced for evaluating theeffectiveness of VTs in the literature are mostly the same as theyardsticks used for conventional teams. Nevertheless, the criteriadeveloped for traditional teams are not able to measure theperformance of VTs carefully, since they ignore the main areas ofsuperiority of VTs over traditional ones and the driving forcesbehind utilizing VTs (Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010). The issueof supervision and measuring the performance of VTs isinseparable from factors related to the management style,leadership strategy, and control method of the team which all ofthem are matters of controversy (Hertel et al., 2005). Therefore,future research should focus on matters including ascertaining thebest controlling strategies for improving the performance of VTswithin any management style. It includes defining KPIs formeasuring the performance of VTs, presenting a plausibledefinition for team effectiveness and team performance forGVETs, and investigating the correlations (if any exists) betweenthe KPIs defined with attributes demonstrated by the team and alsowith the management, leadership, and control method imposed.

1110 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

7.2.7. Team development/training necessitiesOne can findmany salient examples regarding the necessity of

paying attention to VTs development strategies specificallyaddressing training requirements (Torlina and Lichtenstein,2004) in the existing literature (Duarte and Snyder, 2006;Ebrahim et al., 2009; Hertel et al., 2005; Powell et al., 2004)even in construction industry papers (Chinowsky and Rojas,2002). Studies emphasize on the necessity of training andeducation for VTs, since they argue that there is a positiverelationship between the training of team members and theperformance of the team by enhancing the abilities of teammembers. The necessity of training include matters such asimproving the capabilities of members in utilizing technology(Godar and Ferris, 2004; Grosse, 2002; Kayworth and Leidner,2000), and fostering the cohesiveness and relationships betweenteammembers, and facilitating resolving cultural issues (Anawatiand Craig, 2006; Anderson et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2007; Hill,2007). Some researchers also have tried to develop a frameworkfor best practices of training VTs (Rosen et al., 2006). In thisregard, Lumsden et al. (2009) raised the issue of ever changingtraining requirements of VTs members with emphasize ondependency of training modules on the specific conditions ofthe team. We came across other studies (Hertel et al., 2005)arguing that very significant correlation between training of teammembers and effectiveness of the team is not recognizable inconducted studies. The effectiveness of training of VTs membersvia ICTs relied media is also debatable based on some recentresearches (Martins and Schilpzand, 2011). As a result, trainingof GVETs is a ground for further research comprising of manydifferent topics. The relevant subjects include defining thetraining topics and the subjects applicable to GVETs. Examiningthe correlations between the training of team members anddevelopment of different attributes demonstrated by GVETsseverely lacks attention in construction context. Future re-searchers should consider investigating the dynamic differentnecessary subjects of training during the life cycle of a GVET. Inaddition, defining the best methods of training and the best toolsfor training them is another area for research. Ascertaining thekind of training method and subject that are best appropriate foreach GVET design and for each purpose within the constructionindustry is also necessary.

7.3. Closing and disbanding GVETs

Some studies have titled VTs as Transient Teams, since theylast for a short period to perform organizational objectives. Evensome authors have mentioned the temporarily as one of therequired attributes of VTs (Martins et al., 2004; Watson-Manheimet al., 2002). Contrary, some researchers argue that being short-lived could be applicable to any type of team and is not among thespecial characteristics of VTs (Schweitzer and Duxbury, 2010).Anyway, teammembers are well aware of the fate of the team andpredict the final stages from the inception stages (Ahn et al., 2005;Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel et al., 2005; Mukherjee et al.,2012;Wong and Burton, 2000). The process of disbanding shouldbe planned carefully to maintain the motivation and cohesivenessof the team during its operation. In addition, VT members are

skilled and qualified personnel and every measure should be takento maintain their cooperation and satisfaction with the organiza-tion for future projects or consultancy aspects. Issues related toclosure or disbanding of VTs are areas suffering from serious lackof research (Hertel et al., 2005). Specifically, when it comes totransferring all the lessons learnt during the project to theorganization the case requires utmost care. On the other hand,studies have mentioned cases that have caused to disband the teamprior to meeting its defined objectives (Bjørn and Ngwenyama,2009). The reasons for these kinds of events should beinvestigated carefully. Therefore, research on VTs is in desperateneed of further research on topics that include, investigating thebest policies for team disbanding of VTs; defining best strategiesand practices for recording the knowledge; transferring andutilizing the lessons learnt in project with GVETs to theorganization. Other areas include, determining the best practicesfor dealing with the problem of awareness of teammembers of thefuture fate of their team, and how to deal with the consequences ofthe foregoing problem, defining the best practices by whichproject manager can alleviate the related adverse effects of shortduration and disbanding of VTs.

8. Discussions

This paper spots and regards the matters in which the existingliterature in Australian construction industry has paid scantattention to as the grounds for future research. We construct ourresearch questions based on the framework defined by Sandbergand Alvesson (2011) for spotting the gaps of knowledge in theexisting literature. Table 1 illustrates the outcome of all thematters in each single area of knowledge discussed before. TheTable 1 shows a brief description of the state of knowledge in theexisting literature along with mentioning the status of literature inthe construction industry. It also demonstrates the gap ofknowledge in the Australian construction industry based onthree basic gap-spotting modes namely confusion, neglect andapplication. Confusion happens when we have knowledge on thematter in existing research but the views are contradictory,confusing, and competing. When we can find no reasonableresearch conducted on an issue or the existing knowledge hasoverlooked it, we face the neglect mode that is the most commonmode of gaps in research. It is also regarded as neglecting mode ifthe issue is still under research or we cannot find empiricalevidence to support the hypothesis presented. When there is aneed for extending, complementing, or altering the existingknowledge about a matter it falls within the application gap-spotting mode (Sandberg and Alvesson, 2011).

Based on Table 1, the following key observations are made:The lack of research on GVETs in construction industry and

specifically in Australia is somehow obvious. Moreover, wehold the view that:

(1) Different issues concerning managing GVETs in con-struction industry in any country including Australiashould be addressed locally. The best practices formanaging a GVET project might be governed by thespecific conditions of the very project under question, but

1111M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

it is also dictated by the general conditions of thesurrounding environment of the project such as thecultural, economic, political, and legal matters of thecountry and stakeholders of the project. As stated before,and it is evident from the literature, the major part ofknowledge regarding adopting GVETs in constructionindustry comes from US. Taking into account thevulnerability of GVETs practices to ICTs, businessenvironment, industrial relations and cultural issuesthose results could not necessarily be applicable to theAustralian construction industry. Interestingly, authors ofa seminal work from US have pointed out that:

“The results primarily reflect the perspective of large UScompanies. Further research should be performed todevelop a more thorough and comprehensive understandingof perspective of managers and engineers in other countriesand cultures” (Chen and Messner, 2010)

(2) All the issues related to managing of a GVET are closelydependent and correlated matters. The authors are of theview that the relevant matters are so correlated that couldnot be addresses in isolation as independent aspects andstudied in fragmented research projects. We argue thatmanaging a GVET is a package which includes all therelevant issues and each part influences the other aspects ofthe package. The kind of package we should adopt foreffectively managing a GVET in a specific project heavilyrelies on a set of large number of factors. Examples could bethe purpose of the GVET, the driving forces behindimplementing it, the degree of virtuality and later on thedesign selected for the team, and the tenure of the GVET.Elements inside the package also affect each other directly.As examples, the leadership style a Manager selects willdictate the kind of technology and the communicationsmodels we require for implementing our leadership strategyalong with the necessary training topics for team develop-ment. Fig. 2 illustrates a summary of the necessities ofdelivering projects adopting GVETs based on the conceptof management package introduced.However, due to the well-known idiosyncrasies ofconstruction sector, the results of the sizeable researchavailable on VTs in other sectors of the industry such asmanufacturing are not directly usable for constructionindustry. Transferring any managerial approach from othersectors to construction industry takes major redesign andrefinements beforehand (Riley and Clare-Brown, 2001).

(3) Availability of numerous evidences from the literature inmany sections of the industry and based on manyCountries makes the real necessity of adopting GVETsin Australian construction industry convincing. Havingsaid that, the necessity of adopting new ICTs paradigmssuch as GVETs in Australian construction industry hasbeen directly stated in the visions presented for the futureof industry (Hampson and Brandon, 2004). Nevertheless,the mentioned report pointed out that because of uniquecharacteristics of the industry, ICTs related applications

should be designed and developed for Australianconstruction industry “from Scratch”. The claims regard-ing the immense benefits of adopting GVETs inAustralian construction sector have been reinforced bythe reports of amazingly successful projects that haveadopted virtual team members around the globe in somemajor phases of the construction processes (Anonymous,2007).

9. Agenda for future research on GVETs

As a result of the literature review reflected in Table 1 andtaking into account our viewpoints mentioned above, thefollowing section outlines and determines the grounds for furtherresearch within Australian construction industry. As mentionedbefore, the focus is on identifying areas of knowledge necessaryfor managing a GVET in construction projects. As stated, we seeall the issues of managing a GVET as a package. Therefore, futureresearchers should utilize both theoretical and practical ap-proaches for describing all the issues of GVETs as an integratedsystem that will assist Project Managers with providing packagesof best practices for taking themost out of the potential advantagesof GVETs for construction projects and mitigate or eliminate therelevant risks. Developing such packages necessitates awarenessabout:

9.1. The theoretical definition of GVET and dimensions ofvirtuality (what is/are it/they?)

As discussed before there are highly confusing views andapproaches for determining the conceptual definition of GVETsamong researchers and in the existing literature. In addition, thedimensions defining the virtuality suffer from lack of relatedstudies. As a result, future researchers should present a uniquecomprehensive theoretical definition for GVETs taking intoaccount all the dimensions and factors affecting the virtuality ofGVETs.

9.2. The true advantages and drawbacks of implementing GVETsand the affecting factors (what are they?)

The advantages and disadvantages of VTs have been a matterof debate in general industries despite the acceptable volume ofresearch done on the issue. The matter gets worse in constructionindustry due to the lack of research and empirical case studiesinvestigated. In addition, the issue is closely related to the specificconditions of the project, and its surrounding environment.Therefore, the studies with the aim of comparing the benefits andpitfalls of utilizing GVETs in the specific conditions ofAustralian construction industry based on empirical data shouldbe considered by future researchers. Above all, the factorsaffecting either of the outcomes of utilizing GVETs should beinvestigated and determined.

Table 1Spotting the gaps of knowledge in Australian construction industry.

Necessaryknowledge

State of knowledge in existing literature Gap-spotting in extant literature

Generic industries Construction industry Australian construction industry

Confusion Neglecting Application

Theoretical definition ofvirtual teams

There are numerous definitions for VTsNo agreement on a unique definition for VTsDifferent labels for VTs and GVETsLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Confusion+application *Overlooked

Theoretical definition ofvirtuality concept

Few researches on dimensions of virtualityNo agreement on the definition of virtualityand the degree of virtualityLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting (overlooked) *Overlooked

Comparing theadvantages anddisadvantages of VTs

Contradicting resultsLack of empirical studies and fragmentedliteratureLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

ICTs as the maincommunicationchannel

Fragmented literatureNecessity for further researchLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Team designing Researchers suffer from lack of knowledgeFragmented research from different countriesThe factors affecting are unknownLack of research in construction industry andthe issue is somehow local

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Leadership Contradicting styles and strategies introducedIgnoring the virtuality degree beforehandLack of knowledge in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Building trust Contradicting results about the importanceof trust building in VTsHigh dependency on student project forconducting researchAmbiguity about the factors, the mechanism,and the trend during the lifecycle of the teamLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Communicationsmanagement

High dependency on student project forconducting researchContradicting results about social relationsimportanceNecessity of defining all the affecting factorsLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Team compositionissues

Ambiguity about the cultural issues affectingon team and the main dimensions of cultureinfluencing the team performanceHigh dependency on student project forconducting researchThe issue is local and limited to most commonculture conflictsLack of research in construction industry

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lackof empirical support)

*Overlooked

Legal and contractualissues

Lack of research in all the disciplinesSevere lack of research in constructionindustryThe issue is local

Neglecting(overlooked)

Neglecting (overlooked) *Overlooked

Performance/supervision Lack of research on developing a yardstickfor measuring performanceLack of a framework for introducing bestpractices of supervisionThe issue is intertwined with leadership andmanagement practices and could not beaddresses in isolationSevere lack of research in constructionindustry

Neglecting(under-research)

Neglecting (overlooked) *Overlooked

Team developmentstrategies

Contradicting views about the importance oftraining and Lack of attention to the dynamicpattern of necessity of training

Confusion+application Neglecting(under-research+lack ofempirical support)

*Overlooked

1112 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

Table 1 (continued)

Necessaryknowledge

State of knowledge in existing literature Gap-spotting in extant literature

Generic industries Construction industry Australian construction industry

Confusion Neglecting Application

Severe lack of research in constructionindustry

Disbanding virtual team Lack of research in all the disciplinesSevere lack of research in constructionindustry

Neglecting(overlooked)

Neglecting(overlooked)

*Overlooked

1113M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

9.3. Implementing a comprehensive communications manage-ment utilizing ICTs as the main medium (How to do it?)

The literature review revealed the crucial importance of ICTsas the main medium for GVETs. However, the affecting factorsand the best ICTs tools for different purposes of managingcommunications within a GVET project in construction contexthas been overlooked by researchers. Future researchers shoulddevelop a framework presenting the best practices for managingall the communications in a GVET by taking into account ICTs asthe main medium. As a perquisite, all the factors with an effect onICTs and also the state of Australian construction industry interms of available infrastructure for ICTs should be considered inperforming related future researches. It goes without saying thatthe framework should consist of all sorts of communicationsincluding the social and not-job related relationships among themembers and the manager of the GVET.

9.4. Designing a GVET taking into account all team compositionissues (How to do it?)

Based on the results of the literature review, many factorsassociated with issues of team compositing came to light whichshould be considered by the managers when designing thestructure of the GVET. Developing a framework containing thebest practices for designing a GVET based on the results ofempirical research on all the affecting factors is a goodopportunity for future researchers in the field. All the vaguenessconcerning the cultural diversity, virtuality level, necessaryattributes and other affecting factors should be consideredwhile developing the abovementioned framework.

9.5. Implementing a comprehensive GVET human resourcemanagement: (How to do it?)

The ambiguity about the attributes of the members of theGVET and also the managers, the effect of cultural difference andthe best practices for selecting the members and related issues isan arena for future researches in construction context. All thevagueness regarding the matters concerning team developmentincluding building trust among the members, team training andits necessities and the importance of each of these issues on theoutcome of the team should be addressed in future researches. Ontop of that, investigating the trend of trust development and

training requirements of the GVET in the course of its lifecycle isamid the topics for forthcoming studies in the field.

9.6. Best leadership strategies (what are they?)

The literature review showed the great disagreement amongthe researchers concerning the effective leadership strategies forGVETs. It is one of the most challenging subjects in the GVETsresearch filed. Therefore, the future researchers should payadequate attention to clarify the ambiguities regarding the mosteffective leadership strategies for GVETs managers and thequalifications managers should possess to meet the criterion forcompetent leaders. In this regard, the necessity of changingleadership strategies during the lifecycle of the team is of vitalimportance.

9.7. Metrics for measuring GVETs performance (what are they?)

As reflected in the literature review there is a general misleadingtendency among the researchers for measuring the effectiveness ofGVETs against the metrics defined for conventional teams. Thenecessity for introducing yardsticks for evaluating the effectivenessof GVETs is obvious from the result of reviewing the existingliterature. Therefore, future research should focus on introducing aset of metrics and KPIs for measuring the performance of GVETsand facilitating the benchmarking of effectiveness betweendifferent GVETs within the industry.

9.8. Implementing a comprehensive GVET risk management(How to do it?)

Based on the literature review it is obvious that there arenumerous risks associated with different issues related to GVETsspecifically legal and contractual matters. Therefore, there is anabsolute necessity for conducting a comprehensive risk manage-ment on GVETs in Australian construction industry.

9.9. Implementing a GVET integration management (How todo it?)

As we discussed before, there is the need for considering all theforegoing issues of GVETs in an integrated frame in which all thematters are correlated and affect each other. As the result, thefuture research also should consider doing relevant studies for

Fig. 2. Conceptualizing the elements of implementing projects with GVETs during the lifecycle.

1114 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

developing a framework for introducing the best practices ofGVETs integration management within the construction context.

9.10. Application of Strategy-as-Practice (SAP) frameworkswhen conducting research on GVET (Why to do it?)

Having addressed the “What's” and “How's”, there would be aneed for moving away from the prescriptive oriented researchagenda and future directions could also examine the “Why's”aspects of implementing the GVET integration management.Drawing heavily from the study by Vaara and Whittington (2012)which provided a critical review of research in Strategy-as-Practice(SAP) and suggested directions for its development, this paperadopts the same approach by extending the applications within theareas of GVET integration management.

Therefore, future researchers should pay particular attention toaddressing the “Why's” issues associated with the praxis andphronesis of GVETs. In so doing, would provide an opportunityfor the critical evaluation of dealing with the ‘practice’ aspects.There is also scope for the second avenue of potential researchareas under the umbrella of “Why's”, namely the exploration ofconnections at the following two levels: Firstly, studies couldexplore the linkages to macro-institutional theories, as secondly,the micro-foundations. It is anticipated that, this would providean opportunity for deepening the practitioners understanding ofthe issues associated with some of the already identified researchareas such as affecting factors or the enabling and constrainingeffects (thus labeled as practices within the SAP terminology) aspreviously highlighted in Section 9.2. For example, in addressingthe macro-institutional theory and micro-foundation issues,

1115M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

future studies could be of empirical in nature and would aim toexplore the underlying reasons for decision-making and strate-gies involved during the initiation stage (i.e. selection of teammembers) as illustrated in Fig. 1.

As the final discussion, we hold the view that future researchshould address the existing weaknesses in the extant literaturenamely high dependency on student projects and the lack ofcohesiveness of studies. Therefore, the need for conductinglongitudinal and meta-analysis studies based on the data fromempirical case studies taken from the construction industry is anecessity in need of addressing from future researchers in thefield. Furthermore, this study could pave the way to similarresearches in other industries and other regions using GlobalVirtual Engineering or equivalent Teams.

References

Abuelmaatti, A., Rezgui, Y., 2008. In: Camarinha-Matos, L., Picard, W. (Eds.),Virtual Team Working: Current Issues and Directions for the FuturePervasive Collaborative Networks. Springer, Boston, pp. 351–360.

Ahn, H.J., Lee, H.J., Cho, K., Park, S.J., 2005. Utilizing knowledge context invirtual collaborative work. Decision Support Systems 39, 563–582.Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., Gurău, C., 2011. Virtual teamperformance in a highly competitive environment. Group & OrganizationManagement 36, 161–190.Anawati, D., Craig, A., 2006. Behavioraladaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams. IEEE Transactions onProfessional Communication 49, 44–56.Anderson, A., McEwan, R., Bal, J.,Carletta, J., 2007. Virtual team meetings: an analysis of communication andcontext. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 2558–2580.Anonymous, 2007.Australia's Bundamba Plant First Step in Large Water Recycling Scheme,American Water Works Association. Journal, Denver, United States, DenverJournal of American Water Works Association 114–115.

Arenas, A., Wilson, M., Crompton, S., Cojocarasu, D., Mahler, T., Schubert, L.,2008. Bridging the gap between legal and technical contracts. InternetComputing, IEEE 12, 13–19.

Atrostic, B.K., Nguyen, S.V., 2005. IT and productivity in US manufacturing:do computer networks matter? Economic Inquiry 43, 493–506.

Bal, J., Teo, P., 2000. Implementing virtual teamworking. Part 1: a literaturereview of best practice. Logistics Information Management 13, 346–352.

Bal, J., Teo, P.K., 2001. Implementing virtual teamworking: Part 2 — aliterature review. Logistics Information Management 14, 208–222.

Becerik-Gerber, B., Ku, K., Jazizadeh, F., 2012. BIM-enabled virtual andcollaborative construction engineering and management. Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 1, 62.

Bell, B.S., Kozlowski, S.W.J., 2002. A typology of virtual teams. Group &Organization Management 27, 14–49.

Bellamy, T., Williams, A., Sher, W., Sherratt, S., Gameson, R., 2005. PreliminaryExamination of ICT Collaborative Design andManagement in the ConstructionIndustry| NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital Repository.

Bjørn, P., Ngwenyama, O., 2009. Virtual team collaboration: building sharedmeaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. InformationSystems Journal 19, 227–253.

Booth, B., 2011. Examining the Critical Factors of Success in Virtual TeamPerformance. Northcentral University, United States – Arizona.

Brandon, P.S., Kocatürk, T., Foundation, R., 2008. Virtual Futures for Design,Construction & Procurement. Blackwell Pub, Malden, MA.

Brodbeck, F., 2001. Leadership in organizations, psychology of. In: Neil, J.S.,Paul, B.B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social &Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 8569–8573.

Bryant, P.T., 2006. Decline of the engineering class: effects of globaloutsourcing of engineering services. Leadership and Management inEngineering 6, 59–71.

Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., 2003. Elements of a base VEinfrastructure. Computers in Industry 51, 139–163.

Camarinha-Matos, L., Oliveira, A., 2007. Contract Negotiation Wizard for VOCreation Digital Enterprise Technology. In: Cunha, P., Maropoulos, P.(Eds.), Springer, US, pp. 333–342.

Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus, M., 2005. Virtual Organiza-tions: Systems and Practices. Springer Verlag.

Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., Volpe, C.E., 1995. Definingcompetencies and establishing team training requirements. Team effective-ness and decision making in organizations, pp. 333–380.

Cascio, W.F., Shurygailo, S., 2003. E-Leadership and virtual teams.Organizational Dynamics 31, 362–376.

Chang, C.M., 2011. New organizational designs for promoting creativity: a casestudy of virtual teams with anonymity and structured interactions. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management 28, 268–282.

Chen, C., Messner, J.I., 2010. A recommended practices system for a globalvirtual engineering team. Architectural Engineering and Design Manage-ment 6, 207–221.

Chinowsky, P.S., Rojas, E., 2002. Virtual teams: a guide to successfulimplementation. A report to Construction Industry Institute, the Universityof Texas at Austin.Construction Industry Institute.

CICA, 1992. Building IT 2000. CICA, Manchester.Connaughton, S.L., Shuffler, M., 2007. Multinational and multicultural

distributed teams. Small Group Research 38, 387–412.Cooper, H.M., 1988. Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature

reviews. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 1, 104–126.Craighead, C.W., Meredith, J., 2008. Operations management research:

evolution and alternative future paths. International Journal of Operations& Production Management 28, 710–726.

Curseu, P.L., Schalk, R., Wessel, I., 2008. How do virtual teams processinformation? A literature review and implications for management. Journalof Managerial Psychology 23, 628–652.D'Souza, G.C., Colarelli, S.M.,2010. Team member selection decisions for virtual versus face-to-face teams.Computers in Human Behavior 26, 630–635.

Dekker, D.M., Rutte, C.G., Van den Berg, P.T., 2008. Cultural differences inthe perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams.International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32, 441–452.

deVilliers, T.J., Pretorius, L., 2008. Outsourcing detail design work to Low costCenters for engineering and construction projects. Engineering Manage-ment Conference, 2008. IEMC Europe 2008. IEEE International, pp. 1–4.

Di Marco, M.K., Taylor, J.E., Alin, P., 2010. Emergence and role of culturalboundary spanners in global engineering project networks. Journal ofManagement in Engineering 26, 123–132.

Duarte, D.L., Snyder, N.T., 2006. Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools,and Techniques that Succeed. Jossey-Bass Inc. Pub.

Ebrahim, N.A., Ahmed, S., Taha, Z., 2009. Virtual teams: a literature review.Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 3, 2653–2669.

Eriksson, P.E., Westerberg, M., 2011. Effects of cooperative procurementprocedures on construction project performance: a conceptual framework.International Journal of Project Management 29, 197–208.Fuller, M.A.,Hardin, A.M., Davison, R.M., 2007. Efficacy in technology-mediateddistributed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 209–235.

Fuller, C.M., Marett, K., Twitchell, D.P., 2012. An examination of deception invirtual teams: effects of deception on task performance, mutuality, and trust.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 55, 20–35.Gibson,C.B., Gibbs, J.L., 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects ofgeographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and nationaldiversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 51, 451–495.

Gibson, C., Vermeulen, F., 2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus forteam learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 202–239.

Gignac, F., 2005. Building Successful Virtual Teams. Artech House, Boston.Godar, S.H., Ferris, S.P., 2004. Virtual and Collaborative Teams. Idea Group,

Hershey, PA.Goh, S.H., 2010. Leader-member Relationships in Virtual World Teams. The

Florida State University, United States – Florida.Goodbody, J., 2005. Critical success factors for global virtual teams. Strategic

Communication Management 9, 18–21.Green, B.N., Johnson, C.D., Adams, A., 2006. Writing narrative literature

reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal ofChiropractic Medicine 5, 101–117.

1116 M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

Gressgård, L.J., 2011. Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organiza-tions. Team Performance Management 17, 102–119.

Grosse, C.U., 2002. Managing communication within virtual interculturalteams. Business Communication Quarterly 65, 22–38.Hampson, K.D.,Brandon, P., 2004. Construction 2020 — A Vision for Australia's Propertyand Construction Industry. CRC Construction Innovation.

Hannus, M., Blasco, M., Bourdeau, M., Böhms, M., Cooper, G., Garas, F.,Hassan, T., Kazi, A., Leinonen, J., Rezgui, Y., 2003. Construction ICTroadmap. ROADCON project deliverable report D, 52.

Hartenian, L.S., 2003. Team member acquisition of team knowledge, skills, andabilities. Team Performance Management 9, 23–30.

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., Garrison, G., 2004. Challenges to staffing globalvirtual teams. Human Resource Management Review 14, 275–294.

Haywood, M., 1998. Managing Virtual Teams: Practical Techniques for High-technology Project Managers. Artech House, Boston.

Henttonen, K., Blomqvist, K., 2005. Managing distance in a global virtualteam: the evolution of trust through technology‐mediated relationalcommunication. Strategic Change 14, 107–119.Hertel, G., Geister, S.,Konradt, U., 2005. Managing virtual teams: a review of current empiricalresearch. Human Resource Management Review 15, 69–95.

Hill, G.M., 2007. The Complete Project Management Office Handbook.Auerbach Pub.

Hira, R., 2003. Global Outsourcing of Engineering Jobs: Recent Trends andPossible Implications.

Hitson, M.C., 2008. An Analysis of Leadership Methodology and JobSatisfaction Among Virtual Team Members. University of Phoenix, UnitedStates – Arizona.Horii, T., Levitt, R.E., Jin, Y., 2005. In: Iris, D.T. (Ed.),Cross-Cultural Virtual Design Teams: Cultural Influences on TeamPerformance in Global Projects. ASCE, p. 49.

Hunsaker, P.L., Hunsaker, J.S., 2008. Virtual teams: a leader's guide. TeamPerformance Management 14, 86–101.

Huysman, M., Steinfield, C., Jang, C.Y., David, K., In'T Veld, M.H., Poot, J.,Mulder, I., 2003. Virtual teams and the appropriation of communicationtechnology: exploring the concept of media stickiness. Computer SupportedCooperative Work (CSCW) 12, 411–436.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tanriverdi, H., 2003. Leading virtual knowledge networks.Organizational Dynamics 31, 403–412.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R., Staples, D.S., 2004. Toward contextualizedtheories of trust: the role of trust in global virtual teams. InformationSystems Research 15, 250–267.Jones, R., Stevens, M., Fischer, D., 2000.Selection in team contexts. Managing selection in changing organizations:Human resource strategies, pp. 210–241.Joseph, G., 2005. Global VirtualEngineering Team Utilization in the Engineering, Procurement, andConstruction (EPC) Industry. Pennsylvania State University.

Kanawattanachai, P., Yoo, Y., 2002. Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams.The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11, 187–213.

Karoui, M., Gürkan, A., Dudezert, A., 2010. Virtual Team Collaboration: AReview of Literature and Perspectives.

Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2000. The global virtual manager: a prescription forsuccess. European Management Journal 18, 183–194.

Kayworth, T.R., Leidner, D.E., 2002. Leadership effectiveness in global virtualteams. Journal of Management Information Systems 18, 7–40.

Khan, M.S., 2012. Role of trust and relationships in geographically distributedteams: exploratory study on development sector. International Journal ofNetworking and Virtual Organisations 10, 40–58.

Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C.B., Tesluk, P.E., McPherson, S.O., 2002.Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc. TheAcademy of Management Executive 67–79 1993–2005.

Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., Gibson, C.B., 2004. The impact ofteam empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role offace-to-face interaction. The Academy of Management Journal 175–192.

Konradt, U., Hertel, G., 2002. Management Virtueller Teams.Kozlowski, S.W.J., Ilgen, D.R., 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups

and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 7, 77–124.LaLonde, K., 2011. Communication Among Virtual Teams. The College of St.

Scholastica, United States – Minnesota.Lin, C., Standing, C., Liu, Y.-C., 2008. A model to develop effective virtual

teams. Decision Support Systems 45, 1031–1045.

Lumsden, G., Lumsden, D., Wiethoff, C., 2009. Communicating in Groups andTeams: Sharing Leadership. Wadsworth Pub Co.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., 2004. Enabling knowledge creation in far-flungteams: best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal ofKnowledge Management 8, 75–88.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., 2012. How virtual teams use their virtualworkspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on ManagementInformation Systems 3, 1–14.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Rosen, B., 2007. Leading virtual teams. TheAcademy of Management Perspectives ARCHIVE 21, 60–69.Maqsood, T.,Walker, D., Finegan, A., 2012. An Investigation of ICT Diffusion Issues in anAustralian Construction Contractor Company using SSM. CIB, pp. 485–496.

Martins, L.L., Schilpzand, M.C., 2011. Global virtual teams: key developments,research gaps, and future directions. Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management 30.Martins, L.L., Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T.,2004. Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here?Journal of Management 30, 805–835.Mawanda, H.J., 2012. BeyondTechnology, An Analysis of the Perceived Impact of TransformationalLeadership and Contingent Rewards as Extrinsic Motivation on Virtual TeamMember Satisfaction and Leadership Effectiveness: A Quantitative Study.Capella University, United States – Minnesota.

Maynard, M.T., Mathieu, J.E., Rapp, T.L., Gilson, L.L., 2012. Something(s)old and something(s) new: modeling drivers of global virtual teameffectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33, 342–365.

McDonough III, E.F., Kahnb, K.B., Barczaka, G., 2001. An investigation of theuse of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams.Journal of Product Innovation Management 18, 110–120.

McIntosh, G., Sloan, B., 2001. The Potential Impact of Electronic Procurementand Global Sourcing Within The UK Construction Industry, pp. 232–240.

Messner, J., Chen, C., Joseph, G., 2007. Effective use of the global engineeringworkforce. The Construction Industry Institute, Research Report.

Mittleman, D.D., Briggs, R.O., Nunamaker Jr., J.F., 2000. Best practices infacilitating virtual meetings: some notes from initial experience. GroupFacilitation: A Research and Applications Journal 2, 5–14.Monalisa, M.,Daim, T., Mirani, F., Dash, P., Khamis, R., Bhusari, V., 2008. Managingglobal design teams. Research-Technology Management 51, 48–59.

Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Massey, A.P., Song, M., 2001. Getting it together:temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. TheAcademy of Management Journal 1251–1262.

Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Billing, T.K., 2012. Leading virtual teams: how do social,cognitive, and behavioral capabilities matter? Management Decision 50 (2),273–290.

Nayak, N.V., Taylor, J.E., 2009. Offshore outsourcing in global designnetworks. Journal of Management in Engineering 25, 177.

Nemiro, J.E., 2002. The creative process in virtual teams. CommunicationResearch Journal 14, 69–83.

Neuman, W.L., 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches, 6th ed. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

O'Leary, M., Mortensen, M., 2011. Go (con) Figure: Subgroups, Imbalance,and Isolates in Geographically Dispersed Teams.Pauleen, D.J., 2003.Lessons learned crossing boundaries in an ICT-supported distributed team.Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 11, 1–19.

Peansupap, V., 2012. An Exploratory Approach to the Diffusion of ICT in aProject Environment.

Peters, L.M., Manz, C.C., 2007. Identifying antecedents of virtual teamcollaboration. Team Performance Management 13, 117–129.Piccoli, G.,Powell, A., Ives, B., 2004. Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes,and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People 17, 359–379.

Powell, A., Piccoli, G., Ives, B., 2004. Virtual teams: a review of currentliterature and directions for future research1. Database for Advances inInformation Systems 35, 6–36.

Prasad, K., Akhilesh, K., 2002. Global virtual teams: what impacts their designand performance? Team Performance Management 8, 102–112.

Project Management, I., 2008. A Guide to the Project Management Body ofKnowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute, Inc.,Newtown Square, Pa.

Ramesh, V., Dennis, A.R., 2002. The Object-oriented Team: Lessons forVirtual Teams from Global Software Development. IEEE, pp. 212–221.

1117M.R. Hosseini, N. Chileshe / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 1101–1117

Randolph, J.J., 2009. A guide to writing the dissertation literature review.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14, 2.

Reed, A.H., Knight, L.V., 2010. Effect of a virtual project team environment oncommunication-related project risk. International Journal of ProjectManagement 28, 422–427.

Rezgui, Y., 2001. Review of information and the state of the art of knowledgemanagement practices in the construction industry. The KnowledgeEngineering Review 16, 241–254.Rezgui, Y., Zarli, A., 2006. Paving theway to the vision of digital construction: a strategic roadmap. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management 132, 767.Riley, M., Clare-Brown,D., 2001. Comparison of cultures in construction and manufacturingindustries. Journal of Management in Engineering 17, 149–158.

Rosen, B., Furst, S., Blackburn, R., 2006. Training for virtual teams: aninvestigation of current practices and future needs. Human ResourceManagement 45, 229–247.

Rosen, B., Furst, S., Blackburn, R., 2007. Overcoming barriers to knowledgesharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics 36, 259–273.

Salas, E., Burke, C.S., Cannon‐Bowers, J.A., 2000. Teamwork: emergingprinciples. International Journal of Management Reviews 2, 339–356.

Salunke, R., 2011. An Exploratory Case study of Offshore Outsourcing WithinDownstream Structural Steel Engineering Services. The University ofAlabama, United States – Alabama.

Sandberg, J., Alvesson, M., 2011. Ways of constructing research questions:gap-spotting or problematization? Organization 18, 23–44.

Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., Kirkeby, S., 2011. The role of communicationand trust in global virtual teams: a social network perspective. Journal ofManagement Information Systems 28, 273–309.

Schiller, S.Z., Mandviwalla, M., 2007. Virtual team research. Small GroupResearch 38, 12–59.

Schweitzer, L., Duxbury, L., 2010. Conceptualizing and measuring thevirtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal 20, 267–295.

Shapiro, D.L., Furst, S.A., Spreitzer, G.M., Von Glinow, M.A., 2002.Transnational teams in the electronic age: are team identity and highperformance at risk? Journal of Organizational Behavior 23, 455–467.

Shelbourn, M., Hassan, T., Carter, C., 2005. Legal and contractual frameworkfor the VO. Virtual Organizations, pp. 167–176.

Shin, Y., 2005. Conflict resolution in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics34, 331–345.

Sole, D., Edmondson, A., 2002. Situated knowledge and learning in dispersedteams. British Journal of Management 13, S17–S34.Toor, S.R., ofori, G.,

2008. Leadership for future construction industry: agende for authenticleadership. International Journal of Project Management 26, 620–630.

Torlina, L., Lichtenstein, S., 2004. Integration of Knowledge Management inVirtual Groups.

Trent, R.J., 2003. Planning to use work teams effectively. Team PerformanceManagement 9, 50–58.

Vaara, E., Whittington, R., 2012. Strategy-as-practice: taking social practicesseriously. The Academy of Management Annals 6, 285–336.

Van Pelt, S., 2010. The Complexities of Leading Virtual Teams: APhenomenological Study. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX.

Vorakulpipat, C., Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C.J., 2010. Value creating constructionvirtual teams: a case study in the construction sector. Automation inConstruction 19, 142–147.

Walvoord, A.A.G., Redden, E.R., Elliott, L.R., Coovert, M.D., 2008.Empowering followers in virtual teams: guiding principles from theoryand practice. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1884–1906.

Watson-Manheim, M.B., Chudoba, K.M., Crowston, K., 2002. Discontinuitiesand continuities: a new way to understand virtual work. InformationTechnology & People 15, 191–209.

Wong, S.S., Burton, R.M., 2000. Virtual teams: what are their characteristics, andimpact on team performance? Computational & Mathematical OrganizationTheory 6, 339–360.

Yacine, R., 2007. Exploring virtual team-working effectiveness in theconstruction sector. Interacting with Computers 19, 96–112.

Yufeng, Z., Mike, G., Yongjiang, S., 2008. Global engineering networks(GEN). Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19, 299–314.

Yusof, S.A.M., Zakaria, N., 2012. Exploring the State of Discipline on theFormation of Swift Trust within Global Virtual Teams. IEEE, pp. 475–482.

Zenun, M., Loureiro, G., Araujo, C., 2007. The effects of teams' co-location onproject performance. Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering, pp. 717–726.

Zhang, Y., Gregory, M., Shi, Y., 2008. Global engineering networks (GEN):drivers, evolution, configuration, performance and key patterns. Journal ofManufacturing Technology Management 19, 299–314.

Zimmermann, A., 2011. Interpersonal relationships in transnational, virtualteams: towards a configurational perspective. International Journal ofManagement Reviews 13, 59–78.