Transcript Data Management - Texas A&M International University

© Ned Kock
Global virtual teamwork:
Eight key empirical findings and
related conclusions
Ned Kock
© Ned Kock
What are virtual teams?
Teams of individuals whose members
interact primarily electronically in order to
accomplish business tasks – e.g., develop a
new product, redesign a business process,
develop a new contract
© Ned Kock
Team data used as a basis for
developing the findings
• Over 400 Business process redesign
teams in three countries (US, Brazil,
New Zealand)
• Over 460 New product development
teams in the US
• A variety of other types of teams,
performing collaborative tasks of
different levels of complexity, in the US,
Brazil and New Zealand
© Ned Kock
Finding 1:
Naturalness scale
People seem to perceive electronic media as
more or less “natural” (e.g., easy to use)
depending on how the media incorporate
face-to-face communication elements
Naturalness
E-mail
Instant messaging
Audio conferencing
Face-to-face
Video conferencing
© Ned Kock
Finding 2:
Info. vs. knowledge comm.
• It is much harder to communicate knowledge than
information through unnatural media (e.g., e-mail)
• It is estimated that conveying knowledge over e-mail is
at least 10 times more time consuming than face-to-face
(for co-located individuals)
• Information communication
– Two people know how a contract should be structured, and
have to discuss some of the numbers in a few clauses (e.g.,
deadline for product delivery)
• Knowledge communication
– One person needs to explain to another how a contract should
be structured, what clauses should be include, and why
© Ned Kock
Finding 3:
Cognitive effort
It is cognitively more demanding to communicate
using unnatural media
Cognitive effort
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Face-to-face
Electronic
Difference FtF vs. e-conferencing = 41%
(statistically significant)
© Ned Kock
Finding 4:
Communication ambiguity
Communication through unnatural media is more
ambiguous
Communication ambiguity
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Face-to-face
Electronic
Difference FtF vs. e-conferencing = 80%
(statistically significant)
© Ned Kock
Finding 5:
The speech imperative
Support to speech significantly increases the
naturalness of a communication medium
Mental effort
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Instant msg
Audio conferencing
Face-to-face
Difference IM vs. audio conf. = 46% (statistically significant)
Difference audio conf. vs. FtF = 3% (not statistically significant)
© Ned Kock
Finding 6:
Cost (time spent)
Communication through certain unnatural
(asynchronous) media saves time
Cost (time spent)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Face-to-face
Electronic
Difference FtF vs. e-conferencing = 167%
(statistically significant)
© Ned Kock
Finding 7:
Costs other than time spent
• Transportation costs can be substantially higher
in FtF meetings than asynchronous meetings,
being usually correlated with the level of
geographical distribution of the team members
• Disruption costs are significantly higher in FtF
meetings than asynchronous meetings
• Other costs can be reduced as well – clerical
costs, room & equipment etc.
© Ned Kock
Finding 8:
Task outcome quality
Task outcome quality is not significantly affected by the
use of unnatural media
Fluency
Comm unication ambiguity
Electronic
Face-to-face
Cogn itive effort
Task outcome quality
0
2
4
6
8
Difference FtF vs. e-conferencing = 4%
(Not statistically significant)
© Ned Kock
Conclusions: Global teams
should …
• Break team projects down into subtasks categorized
along a knowledge communication intensiveness scale;
say a 4-level scale, from 1 (little KC) to 4 (a lot of KC)
• Use the following media for the tasks:
–
–
–
–
1: E-mail or similar
2: Instant messaging or similar
3: Asynchronous audio conferencing
4: Synchronous audio or teleconferencing
• The above assumes that FtF communication needs to be
avoided
© Ned Kock
Final slide
References
• Kock, N. and Davison, R. (2003), Can Lean Media Support Knowledge
Sharing? Investigating a Hidden Advantage of Process Improvement, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, V.50, No.2, pp. 151-163.
• Kock, N. (2002), Evolution and Media Naturalness: A Look at ECommunication Through a Darwinian Theoretical Lens, Proceedings of the
23rd International Conference on Information Systems, Applegate, L., Galliers,
R. and DeGross, J.L. (Eds), The Association for Information Systems, Atlanta,
GA, pp. 373-382.
• Kock, N. (1999), Process Improvement and Organizational Learning: The Role
of Collaboration Technologies, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
• Kock, N. (1998), Can Communication Medium Limitations Foster Better Group
Outcomes? An Action Research Study, Information & Management, V.34, No.5,
pp. 295-305.
http://www.tamiu.edu/~nedkock